OF 
CALIFORNIA 

IRVINE 


T  K 


VI-VII 


REPRESENTATION  IN  VIRGINIA 


JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES 

IN 

HlSTOKICAL   AND   POLITICAL   SCIENCE 
HERBERT  B.  ADAMS,  Editor 


History  is  past  Politics  and  Politics  are  present  History — freeman 


FOURTEENTH  SERIES 
VI-VII 

REPRESENTATION  IN  VIRGINIA 


BY  JULIAN  A.  C.  CHANDLER,  A.  M. 


BALTIMORE 
THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

PUBLISHED     MONTHLY 

June   and  July,   1896 


COPYRIGHT,  1896,  BY  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS. 


JOHN  MURPHY  4  CO.,  PRINTERS, 
BALTIMORE. 


PREFACE. 


This  monograph  represents  a  few  chapters  of  a  larger  work 
on  the  Constitutional  History  of  Virginia,  which  the  writer  has 
in  preparation.  The  investigation  has  been  conducted  in  an 
impartial  spirit,  and  with  the  desire  to  state  truthfully  and  unre- 
servedly the  facts  in  regard  to  a  special  field  of  our  State  History 
which  has  been  overlooked.  Only  representation  in  the  State 
Legislature,  and  not  Federal  representation,  has  been  here  treated. 
This  work  shows  that  the  following  systems  of  representation  have 
existed  in  the  State : 

(1).  Representation  by  settlements  or  plantations  with  no  defi- 
nite number  of  representatives  from  each  settlement. 

(2).  Parish  and  county  representation  without  a  fixed  number 
of  delegates  from  either  the  parishes  or  counties. 

(3).  Representation  by  counties  only,  two  representatives  from 
each  county,  neither  more  nor  less,  whether  the  counties  were  large 
or  small. 

(4).  Representation  to  the  College  of  William  and  Mary  in 
accordance  with  the  English  custom  of  allowing  representation  to 
the  Universities. 

(5).  Borough  representation,  granted  by  the  town  charters,  or 
by  an  act  of  the  General  Assembly. 

(6).  From  1830  to  1851,  an  arbitrary  system  of  representation 
without  a  constitutional  basis. 

(7).  Beginning  with  1852,  another  arbitrary  system  of  repre- 
sentation to  continue  till  1865,  when  the  Legislature  should  make 
a  reapportionment ;  but,  in  case  of  failure  to  do  so,  a  plan  was 
provided  by  which  a  constitutional  basis  was  to  be  adopted  by  the 
vote  of  the  people. 

(8).  Representation  apportioned  by  the  so-called  "  Underwood 
Constitution,"  and  based  on  the  registered  voters  of  1867,  with  a 
provision  for  reapportionments  after  every  census,  but  with  no 
constitutional  basis  for  such  reapportionmente. 

5 


6  Preface.  [260 

(9).  Representation  apportioned  in  1878  and  1891  with  refer- 
ence to  population  and  county  boundaries. 

A  noteworthy  fact  in  regard  to  the  present  system  of  represen- 
tation is  that  there  is  no  constitutional  basis,  and  that  the  General 
Assembly  has  the  power  to  adopt  plans  for  each  reapportionment. 

Throughout  this  work  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  the 
causes  and  effects  of  all  movements  in  regard  to  representation.1 
By  this  means  light  is  thrown  on  the  internal  conditions  of  Vir- 
ginia. The  different  interests  of  the  two  great  sections,  the  one 
east,  and  the  other  west,  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  are  shown.  The 
inability  to  settle  upon  a  satisfactory  basis  of  representation  is 
seen  to  have  been  due  to  the  unequal  distribution  of  the  slave 
population  between  the  eastern  and  western  portions  of  the  State. 
The  inequality  of  representation,  from  the  standpoint  of  white 
population,  is  shown  to  have  produced  much  discontent  in  West- 
ern Virginia  during  the  period  beginning  about  1800  and  lasting 
till  1851,  and,  as  a  result,  the  division  of  the  State  was  often 
spoken  of  and  discussed.  In  short,  the  jealousy  existing  until 
1851  between  Eastern  and  Western  Virginia  had  its  origin  in  the 
representative  system. 

The  principal  sources  used  in  the  preparation  of  this  monograph 
are  the  Acts  of  the  General  Assembly  (1619-1891)  ;  the  Journals 
of  the  General  Assembly,  as  many  as  could  be  found ;  the  Pro- 
ceedings and  Debates,  and  the  Journals  and  Documents,  of  the 
Constitutional  Conventions  of  1829-30,  of  1850-51,  and  of  1867- 
68 ;  and  the  contemporary  newspapers.  Other  authorities  are 
also  cited  in  the  foot-notes. 

Thanks  are  due  to  Professor  H.  B.  Adams,  of  the  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  and  to  Messrs.  W.  W.  Scott  and  W.  G.  Stanard, 
of  the  Virginia  State  Library,  for  valuable  suggestions. 

J.  A.  C.  CHANDLER. 
JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY, 

BALTIMORE,  MD.,  April,  1896. 

xTo  furnish  an  adequate  treatment  of  the  history  of  representation,  I 
have  introduced  an  account  of  the  several  constitutional  conventions, 
detailing  at  the  same  time  the  repeated  fights  in  the  Legislature  over  the 
convention  question.  This  ought  to  be  of  some  interest  to  the  present 
politicians  of  the  State,  since  the  recent  Legislature  passed,  in  March,  a 
bill  to  submit  to  the  voters,  in  1897,  the  question  of  a  convention  to  amend 
the  present  constitution. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. — INTRODUCTION. 

Steps  to  Representative  Government — Charters  of  1606,  1609 
and  1612 — First  Legislative  Assembly  in  1619 — Ordinance  of 
London  Company,  1621 9 

CHAPTER  II. — REPRESENTATION  IN  THE  COLONIAL  PERIOD  AND 

UNDER  THE  CONSTITUTION  OF   1776. 

Representation  by  settlements,  plantations,  boroughs,  parishes 
and  counties — Constitution  of  1776 — General  Assembly  of  two 
houses — Defects  of  the  Constitution  of  1776 14 

CHAPTER  III. — THE  STRUGGLE  FOR  EQUALIZING  REPRESENTATION, 
Jefferson's  opposition  to  the  county  system — Madison's  attempt 
for  a  constitutional  convention,  1784 — Repeated  attempts  in 
the  Legislature — Petitions — The  western  portion  of  the  State 
most  discontented — Winchester  and  Staunton  Conventions  of 
1816 — Senate  reapportioned  in  1816 — Staunton  Convention 
of  1825 — Constitutional  Convention  Bill,  1828 — Organization 
of  the  Convention 20 

CHAPTER  IV. — THE  FIGHT  OVER  REPRESENTATION  IN  THE  CON- 
VENTION OF  1829-30. 

Prominence  of  the  members — The  different  elements  in  the  Con- 
vention— The  white  basis  and  the  mixed  basis — Attempts  at 
compromise — Failure  to  adopt  a  constitutional  basis 32 

CHAPTER  V. — THE  STEPS  TO  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1850-51. 

Internal  Improvements ;  their  connection  with  representation — 
Condition  of  Eastern  and  Western  Virginia — Jealousy  between 
the  sections  due  to  the  system  of  representation — Attempts  to 
reapportion  representation  in  1840, 1841  and  1842 — Lewisburg 
Convention,  1843 — Attempts  for  a  Constitutional  Convention 
— Staunton  Convention  in  1846 — Constitutional  Convention 
Bill — Approval  by  the  people — Organized  on  the  mixed  basis...  45 

7 


8  Contents.  [262 

CHAPTER  VI.— THE  REFORM  CONVENTION  OP  1850-51.                   PAGE. 
Fight  over  white  and  mixed  basis — West  vs.  East — Compromise — 
Discontent  of  the  East — The  new  system  of  representation — 
Disappearance  of  sectional  animosity  in  regard  to  represen- 
tation     60 

CHAPTER  VII. — THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  OF  EEPRESENTATION. 

West  Virginia  organized  as  a  State — Alexandria  Government— 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1867-68 — Representation  gerry- 
mandered— Apportionments  of  1878  and  1891 — Comments  on 
the  present  system 72 


REPRESENTATION  IN  VIRGINIA. 


CHAPTER  I. 
INTRODUCTION. 

By  a  charter  dated  April  10,  1606,  James  I  authorized  the 
settlement  of  two  colonies  in  the  territory  of  Virginia.  Each 
colony  was  to  have  a  resident  council  of  thirteen  to  govern 
according  to  the  laws  and  ordinances  constituted  by  the  king. 
In  addition  to  these,  there  was  to  be  one  supreme  council  in 
England  having  control,  under  the  supervision  of  the  king, 
of  the  government  of  the  two  colonies.1  Following  this  charter, 
on  November  20, 1606,  James  issued  the  articles  of  government 
for  the  two  colonies.2  These  were  the  laws  by  which  the 
colonies  were  to  be  governed.  James  appointed  the  "  Council 
of  Virginia  "  (the  council  residing  in  England),  granting  it  no 
power  or  authority  except  at  his  pleasure  and  will.  It  was 
simply  to  have  the  power  to  appoint  the  subordinate  councils 
that  were  to  reside  in  Virginia,  and  to  give  directions  for  the 
governing  of  the  same.  The  king  reserved  to  himself  the 
right  to  "  change,  alter,  or  abolish  "  the  council. 


1  Hening,  I,  57-67.  The  two  colonies  are  spoken  of  as  "  first "  and 
"  second."  The  "  first "  colony  was  to  be  anywhere  between  34  and  41 
parallels  of  north  latitude,  and  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  London 
Company.  It  is  with  this  that  we  are  concerned. 

*  Hening,  I,  67-75. 


10  Representation  in  Virginia.  [264 

The  council  resident  in  the  colony  was  granted  the  right  to 
select  annually  one  of  its  own  members  (not  being  the  minister) 
as  president,  and  to  remove  him.  It  also  had  the  right  to 
adopt  ordinances  for  the  "  better  government  and  peace  of  the 
people,"  provided  they  in  no  way  had  reference  to  the  "  life 
or  member  "  of  any  party.  These  ordinances  were  to  remain 
in  force  till  made  void  by  the  king  or  council  in  England. 

The  preceding  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  machinery  of 
government  under  which  a  colony  was  established  at  James- 
town, May  13,  1607.  The  government  was  entirely  at  the 
mercy  of  the  king,  no  powers  of  self-government  being 
delegated  to  the  settlers.  The  councils  in  England  and  Vir- 
ginia were  both  restricted  in  their  power  of  making  ordinances. 
In  short,  there  is  no  germ  of  representative  government. 
"  The  form  of  government  thus  provided  for  the  new  colony 
was  cumbrous  and  complicated,  the  legislative  and  adminis- 
trative powers  being  so  distributed  between  the  local  council, 
the  crown  and  Company,  as  to  involve  the  dangers  of  delays, 
uncertainty,  conflict  and  irresponsibility.  By  the  words  of 
the  charter,  the  colonists  were  invested  with  the  rights  of 
Englishmen;  yet,  as  far  as  political  rights  were  concerned, 
there  being  no  security  provided  by  which  they  could  be 
vindicated,  they  might  often  prove  to  be  of  no  more  real  value 
than  the  parchment  on  which  they  were  written.  However, 
the  government  of  such  an  infant  colony  must  of  necessity 
have  been  for  the  most  part  arbitrary;  the  political  rights 
must  for  a  time  have  laid  in  abeyance." l 

May  23,  1609,  James  granted  a  charter2  organizing  the 
London  Company  into  a  corporation.  This  charter  was 
granted  because  the  colony  had  not  prospered  under  its  former 
management,  and  the  expense  to  the  Company  had  been  so 
great,  that  it  applied  to  the  king  for  an  extension  of  its 


Campbell,  Hist,  of  Fa.,  p.  37. 

2  Another  charter  had  been  granted  in  1607,  but  it  was  simply  to  enlarge 
the  Council  in  England.    Hening,  I,  76-79. 


265]  Introduction.  11 

privileges  and  powers ;  so  the  Company  was  incorporated  with 
stockholders  numbering  more  than  six  hundred  persons  and 
some  fifty-six  companies :  the  Company  and  its  successors  to 
be  perpetual.  A  perpetual  council,  numbering  about  fifty-two, 
was  established,  the  king  appointing  the  first  members  and  the 
treasurer,  but  afterwards  the  whole  Company  was  to  elect  a 
councillor,  or  the  treasurer,  when  a  vacancy  occurred.  The 
Council  was  authorized  to  elect  all  officers  for  the  local  govern- 
ment in  the  colony  and  to  "  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all 
manner  of  orders,  laws,  directions,  instructions,  forms  and 
ceremonies  of  government"  for  the  colony,  or  "to  abrogate, 
revoke  or  change "  the  same.1  This  charter  is  very  note- 
worthy because  it  made  the  Council  and  Company  self-perpetu- 
ating, and  because  the  king  practically  gave  up  all  control 
over  the  colony.  The  powers  granted  were  wide  in  their 
scope,  and  formed  the  basis  for  the  establishment  of  representa- 
tive government  in  Virginia  without  recourse  to  the  king. 

The  London  Company  now  changed  the  form  of  government 
in  the  colony.  The  local  council  was  removed,  and,  instead, 
the  colony  was  to  be  ruled  by  a  governor,  lieutenant  governor 
and  admiral.2  As  yet  the  colony  was  not  sufficiently  popu- 
lated for  a  legislative  body.3 

In  1612,  James  granted  a  new  charter  in  order  to  extend 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  London  Company  over  islands  within 
three  hundred  leagues  of  the  continent.4  He  reaffirmed  all 
the  old  powers,  but,  in  addition,  established  a  weekly  court 
to  be  composed  of  not  less  than  twenty  members,  to  act  upon 
minor  matters,  and  matters  requiring  immediate  attention. 
But  for  matters  of  greater  weight  and  importance,  such  as 
the  "  manner  of  government,"  the  Company  was  to  hold  four 
General  Courts  each  year.  Full  power  was  granted  these 


1Hening,  I,  91.  8Stith,  Hist,  of  Va.,  101. 

3  The  population  in  1616  was  about  351 ;  in  1618,  about  400 ;  but  in  1619, 
over  2,000.     Neill,  Lmd.  Co.,  pp.  Ill,  181,  410. 
<Hening,  I,  98-100. 


12  Representation  in  Virginia.  [266 

courts  to  establish  any  form  of  government  for  the  colony, 
and  to  enact  laws  for  its  management. 

In  1618,  the  General  Court  appointed  Sir  George  Yeardley 
as  governor,  and  gave  him  a  commission  for  the  establishment 
of  a  better  form  of  government.1  The  colonists  were  to  be 
governed  as  English  subjects,  and,  in  order  that  they  might 
have  a  voice  in  the  making  of  their  laws,  a  General  Assembly 
was  established.2  Accordingly,  summonses  were  sent  out  in 
the  latter  part  of  June,  1619,  for  the  election  of  burgesses  by 
the  people,3  and  the  burgesses  thus  elected  met  at  Jamestown, 
July  30,  1619.4  The  commission  establishing  this  first  legis- 
lative body  has  not  been  found  ;  but  two  years  later,  when  Sir 
Francis  Wyatt  became  governor,  the  General  Court  issued  a 
charter  which  confirmed  Yeardley's  action.5  This  charter, 
dated  July  24,  1621,  with  propriety  may  be  called  the  first 
American  Constitution.  It  permanently  established  represen- 
tative government  in  Virginia.  The  government  was  now 
(1)  a  Governor  appointed  by  the  Company,  (2)  a  Council  of 
State,  to  be  assistants  to  the  Governor,  also  appointed  by  the 
Company,  and  (3)  a  General  Assembly  in  which  sat  the 
Governor,  Council  and  Burgesses  elected  by  the  people.  The 
General  Assembly  was  to  enact  the  laws  for  the  colony,  but 
the  General  Court  reserved  the  right  to  veto  its  acts.6 

We  have  thus  briefly  stated  the  steps  to  representative 
government,  how  at  first  the  councils  were  under  the  king,  and, 
consequently,  the  government  of  the  colony  was  controlled  by 
him ;  secondly,  how,  from  1609  to  1612,  the  control  was 
delegated  to  the  treasurer  and  council,  but  this  being  compara- 
tively a  small  body  was  easily  influenced  by  the  royal  will, 
and,  thirdly,  how,  after  16L2,  the  management  of  Virginia 

1  McDonald  Papers,  I,  135 :   W.  W.  Henry,  Va.  Mag.  of  Hist.,  II,  57. 

* McDonald  Papers,  I,  136.  'Smith,  Hist,  of  Va.,  II,  39. 

4N.  Y.  Hist.  Coll.,  ser.  2,  vol.  3,  329.  8Hening,  I,  pp.  110-113. 

6  However,  when  the  government  of  Virginia  should  become  well  organ- 
ized, "  no  orders  of  the  Court  afterwards  shall  bind  the  said  colony  unless 
they  be  ratified  in  like  manner  in  the  General  Assemblies."  (Charter.) 


267]  Introduction.  13 

was  in  tjie  hands  of  the  General  Court.  This,  being  the 
assembly  of  the  whole  Company,  was  too  large  to  be  ruled  by 
the  king.1  In  1619,  Virginia  was  in  a  prosperous  condition, 
the  population  had  greatly  increased,  and  in  order  that  there 
might  be  a  form  of  government  "  for  the  greatest  benefit  and 
comfort  of  the  people,  whereby  all  injustice,  grievances,  and 
oppressions  may  be  prevented  and  kept  off  from  the  colony," 2 
the  General  Court  granted  the  people  a  representative  govern- 
ment. So  the  English  rights  and  liberties  which  James  had 
promised  in  his  first  charter,  but  had  never  granted,  were 
acquired  by  the  inhabitants  of  Virginia  through  the  action  of 
the  London  Company. 


1  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  Sir  Edwin  Sandys  was  elected  treasurer 
in  spite  of  the  opposition  of  James.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  James 
was  opposed  to  representative  government  for  the  colony,  and  that  this  is  one 
cause  of  his  breach  with  the  London  Company.  When  he  was  proceeding  to 
revoke  the  Company's  charter,  the  inhabitants  feared  that  they  would  lose 
their  assembly,  so  petitioned  the  king  "  that  they  might  still  retain  the 
liberty  of  popular  assemblies."  The  charter  was,  however,  revoked  in  1624, 
and  no  one  can  tell  what  James  proposed  for  Virginia,  as  he  died  before  he 
had  instituted  any  other  form  of  government  in  the  colony.  Neill,  Lond. 
Co.,  pp.  177  and  185 :  Cooke,  Hist,  of  Fa.,  pp.  118,  and  129-133. 

'Hening,  1, 110. 


CHAPTER  II. 

REPRESENTATION  IN  THE  COLONIAL  PERIOD  AND  UNDER 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  1776. 

In  the  General  Assembly  of  1619  there  were  two  burgesses 
from  each  borough,  plantation,  or  settlement.  With  these  sat 
the  Governor  and  Council  of  State.1  For  this  organization 
there  remain  no  written  instructions,  but  the  "  Ordinance  and 
Constitution"  of  1621  contains  this  basis.2  The  Council  sat 
with  the  Burgesses  as  one  legislative  body  till  1680,  after 
which  time  it  sat  apart  as  an  upper  house,  having  only  the 
power  to  approve  or  to  reject  the  proposals  of  the  Burgesses, 


1 N.  T.  Hist.  Soc.  Coll.,  ser.  2,  vol.  3,  p.  329 ;  Campbell,  p.  139 ;  W.  W. 
Henry,  Va.  Hist.  Mag.,  vol.  II,  p.  57,  et  seq.;  Neill,  London  Co.,  p.  139; 
McDonald  Papers  (MS.),  vol.  I,  pp.  5-6.  The  eleven  plantations  and 
their  representatives  are  as  follows : 

(1)  James  City:  William  Powell  and  William  Spence. 

(2)  Charles  City  :  Samuel  Sharp  and  Samuel  Jordan. 

(3)  City  of  Henrico :  Thomas  Dowse  and  John  Polentine. 

(4)  Kiccowtan  (Hampton) :  William  Tucker  and  William  Capp. 

(5)  Martin  Brandon :  Thomas  Davis  and  Robert  Stacy. 

(6)  Smythe's  Hundred :  Thomas  Graves  and  Walter  Shelley. 

(7)  Martin's  Hundred :  John  Boys  and  John  Jackson. 

(8)  Argall's  Gifte :  Thomas  Pawlett  and  Mr.  Gourgaing. 

(9)  Lawne's  Plantation:  Christopher  Lawne  and  Ensign  Washer. 

(10)  Ward's  Plantation  :  Captain  Ward  and  Lieutenant  Gibbes. 

(11)  Flowerdieu  Hundred:  Ensign  Rossingham  and  Mr.  Jefferson. 
*Hening,  I,  111.    The  Governor  was  to  call  once  yearly  and  no  oftener, 

unless  in  matters  of  great  importance,  an  assembly  to  consist  of  the  "  Coun- 
cil of  State  and  two  burgesses  out  of  every  town,  hundred,  or  other  particular 
plantation,  to  be  respectively  chosen  by  the  inhabitants." 

14 


269]  Representation  in  the  Colonial  Period.  15 

and  no  power  to  initiate  legislation.1  The  Assembly  was  not 
called  "  once  yearly  "  in  accordance  with  the  ordinance  of  1621, 
but  only  at  the  pleasure  of  the  governor,  who  had  the  power 
to  prorogue  or  dissolve  the  Assembly,  and  to  issue  writs  for 
new  elections.2  The  Assembly  met  quite  frequently,  however, 
there  being,  from  1619  to  1776,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
one  sessions.  The  election  of  two  burgesses  only  from  each 
borough  or  settlement  was  not  strictly  observed.  From  1629 
to  1645,  some  plantations  had  as  many  as  six  representatives, 
and  even  after  the  introduction  of  the  county  system  in  1634, 
a  county,  on  one  occasion,  had  as  many  as  eight ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  many  districts  would  send  only  one  burgess.3 
Plantations  and  boroughs  continued  to  be  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation till  1634,  when  eight  counties  were  established  * ;  but 
after  this,  at  times,  plantations  were  represented.5  To  break  up 
this  irregular  system  of  representation,  and  to  prevent  the  coun- 
ties from  sending  so  many  burgesses,  an  act  was  passed,  1 645, 
providing  that  no  county  should  have  more  than  four  burgesses 
except  James  City  which  should  send  five  burgesses  for  the 
county  and  one  for  Jamestown.6 

Very  seldom  the  number  of  burgesses  from  a  county 
amounted  to  four,  but  in  three  cases  there  is  an  apparent 
infringement  of  the  law.  In  1652,  Northampton  and  Charles 
City  had  five  each,  and,  in  1658,  Northampton  again  had  five.7 
This  increase,  however,  may  have  been  due  to  parish  repre- 
sentation. 

At  just  what  time  and  by  what  act  parish  representation 
was  introduced,  is  not  known;  but,  in  1656,  was  passed  an  act 


1  Beverly,  Hist,  of  Fa.,  p.  188.  2  Ibid.,  p.  191. 

8  See  Lists  of  Burgesses,  Herring,  I,  pp.  138,  148,  154, 178,  202,  239,  253, 
289,  299;  and  Fa.  Hist.  Mag.,  vol.  II,  p.  99. 

4  Hening,  I,  224.    James  City,  Henrico,  Elizabeth  City,  Warwick  River 
(Warwick),  Warrosquyoake  (Isle  of  Wight),  Charles  River  (York)  and 
Accomac. 

5  Four  plantations  in  1639,  Fa.  Hist.  Mag.,  II,  p.  99. 
•Hening,  I,  300.  7  Ibid.,  pp.  370,  373,  431. 


16  Representation  in  Virginia.  [270 

recognizing  parish  representation  and  alluding  to  a  "former 
act "  which  gave  the  privilege  to  a  parish  to  send  one  or  two 
burgesses.1  The  list  of  burgesses  for  1632  shows  two  parishes 
sending  burgesses.2  Parish  representation  gave  some  trouble, 
as  disputes  arose  whether  the  county,  or  the  parish,  should 
pay  the  parochial  burgesses.  By  the  act  of  1656,  every  parish 
had  to  pay  its  burgess.*  Again  the  parishes  had  trouble  with 
the  sheriffs  in  regard  to  the  election  of  their  burgesses,  and 
complaints  were  made  that  the  sheriffs  had  refused  to  return 
the  burgesses  elected  by  the  parishes ;  so,  in  1660,  it  was  enacted 
that  the  sheriffs,  at  the  request  of  the  vestrymen,  should  hold 
elections  in  the  parishes  and  make  returns  of  the  same.4  In 
1658,  an  attempt  was  made  to  pay  all  burgesses  by  a  duty  on 
exported  tobacco,  and  to  reduce  the  number  to  two  from  each 
county  to  save  expense,  but  this  failed  to  be  enacted.8 

In  1661,  the  number  of  burgesses  was  limited  to  two  from 
each  county  and  one  from  Jamestown.6  Nothing  was  said  of 
parish  representation.  This  reduction  was  due  to  the  expense 
of  so  many  burgesses;  and,  in  1662,  when  the  same  law  was 
reenacted,  the  heavy  expense  was  attributed  to  the  "  great  num- 
ber of  burgesses  unnecessarily  chosen  by  several  parishes."7 


llbid.,  p.  421. 

*  These  were  the  upper  and  lower  parishes  of  Elizabeth  City  (Hening,  I, 
154).  Immediately  after  the  county  became  the  unit  of  representation 
parishes  still  elected  burgesses  as  shown  by  the  list  of  burgesses  for  1639. 
(  Fa.  Hist.  Mag.  II,  p.  99.)  The  acts  of  1643,  establishing  Lynhaven  Parish 
(Hen.  I,  250)  and  parishes  in  Upper  Norfolk  County  (Hen.  I,  277),  granted 
them  the  right  to  choose  burgesses. 

3  Hening,  I,  421.  4  Hening,  I,  545. 

8  Hening,  I,  p.  493.  Burgesses  were  paid  by  levies  in  the  counties  (Hening, 
I,  267,  421,  493),  and  parochial  burgesses  by  levies  in  the  parish  (Hening, 
I,  421).  There  was  no  definite  pay,  but  each  burgess  presented  his  bill  to 
the  County  Court,  or  vestrymen,  as  the  case  might  be,  and  an  order  for  a 
levy  would  be  given.  This  was  used  for  corruption,  as  men  anxious  to  be 
elected  would  offer  to  take  the  "  place  at  low  rates;"  so  by  an  act,  1661,  the 
pay  of  each  burgess  was  made  "  one  hundred  and  fifty  pounds  of  tobacco  per 
day,  and  charge  of  going  and  coming." 

6  Hening,  II,  20.  7  Ibid.,  p.  106. 


271]  Representation  in  the  Colonial  Period.  17 

It  was  also  enacted  that  every  county  that  would  lay  out  one 
hundred  acres  of  land,  and  people  it  with  one  hundred  tithables, 
could  send  one  burgess  from  that  place.1  In  1663,  Charles 
City  and  Isle  of  Wight  each  had  three  burgesses  in  spite  of  the 
late  law,  while  many  counties  sent  only  one.2 

In  1669,  the  counties  were  deprived  of  the  right  to  choose 
one,  or  two  burgesses,  at  discretion,  and  each  county  was 
compelled  to  send  two  burgesses,  neither  more  nor  less.3  This 
established  the  county  system  of  representation  which  lasted 
till  1830.  There  was  no  attempt  to  represent  population,  but 
simply  districts,  all  having  equal  representation  without  regard 
to  the  number  of  inhabitants.  From  time  to  time,  however, 
the  General  Assembly  created  new  counties,  and  each  was 
given  two  representatives.  The  College  of  William  and  Mary 
by  its  charter  (1693)  was  given  one  burgess.4 

Town  representation  necessarily  looked  somewhat  to  popu- 
lation, but  no  definite  population  was  required.  Jamestown 
was  first  allowed  a  burgess  in  1645,  and  again  by  acts  of  1661 
and  1662.5  It  was  the  only  town  represented  till  1722,  when 
Williamsburg  by  its  charter  was  granted  representation.6 
Norfolk  was  given  this  privilege  in  1736.7 

Thus  representation  stood  in  1776  when  a  constitution  was 
adopted.  This  constitution  established  a  General  Assembly 


1  Ibid.,  pp.  20,  106.  This  is  the  first  attempt  to  establish  anything  like 
a  population  basis.  Tithables  were  all  white  males,  negroes  and  Indian 
servants,  male  or  female,  16  years  old  and  over.  (Hening,  II,  84.) 

8  This  increase  in  representation  for  Charles  City  and  Isle  of  Wight  may 
be  due  to  the  fact  that  each  had  laid  out  100  acres  of  land,  and  peopled  it 
with  100  tithables,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  this.  (Hening,  II,  187.) 

'Hening,  II,  272. 

4  Charter,  art.  XVIII;  Morrison's  Coll.  of  William  and  Mary,  p.  19. 

»  Hening,  I,  300 ;  II,  20.  6  Hening,  V,  205. 

7  Hening,  IV,  542:  and  Ingle,  Local  Institutions  in  Va.  (J.  H.  U.  Studies, 
3  ser.),  p.  124.  An  act  of  1705  (Hen.  Ill,  616)  for  establishing  towns 
throughout  the  colony  provided  that,  when  the  population  of  any  town 
reached  60  families,  it  might  send  one  burgess  to  the  General  Assembly, 
but  this  was  repealed  about  1710  (Ingle,  LOG.  Inst.  in  Va.,  p.  108). 

2 


18  Representation  in  Virginia.  [272 

of  two  houses,  both  elected  by  the  people.1  The  House  of 
Delegates  took  the  place  of  the  old  House  of  Burgesses,  and 
was  to  consist  of  two  representatives  from  each  county,  and 
one  from  Williamsburg  and  one  from  Norfolk.  The  General 
Assembly  was  given  the  right  to  create  new  counties  and  to 
grant  each  two  delegates,  and  also  to  allow  representation  to 
towns  and  cities  at  its  discretion.  In  case  a  town,  having 
representation,  decreased  in  population  so  that  for  seven  suc- 
cessive years  its  voting  population  was  less  than  half  the 
number  of  voters  in  some  one  county,  it  was  to  be  deprived  of 
its  delegate.2  The  delegates  were  to  be  elected  annually.3 

A  Senate  of  twenty-four  members,  for  the  election  of  whom 
the  State  was  to  be  divided  into  twenty-four  districts,  was 
created.  Six  districts  were  to  elect  each  year,  in  order  to  have 
a  rotating  body,  each  member  serving  four  years.  The 
General  Assembly  was  to  meet  annually.4 

We  have  now  seen  that  representation  in  Virginia  from  the 
first  was  based  on  districts  and  not  population;  that  by  1669 
all  traces  of  plantation  and  parish  representation  had  dis- 
appeared, and  that  till  1776,  excepting  the  College,  only  county 
and  borough  representation  existed.  Also  it  has  been  seen 
that  the  constitution  of  1776  adopted  the  colonial  system  of 
county  representation  as  a  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates, 
while  in  the  case  of  towns  the  whole  matter  was  left  in  the  hands 
of  the  Legislature.  In  regard  to  the  Senate,  the  constitution 


1  Hening,  I,  p.  57,  et  seq. 

*  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  College  of  William  and  Mary,  and  Jamestown 
were  deprived  of  their  representatives.  Since  the  capital  had  been  moved  to 
Williamsburg,  Jamestown  had  been  decreasing  in  population  till  in  1776 
there  were  only  three  or  four  families  on  the  island. 

3  At  this  time  there  were  62  counties  and  two  boroughs,  so  the  House  of 
Delegates  was  composed  of  126  members. 

4  The  qualification  for  a  senator  or  delegate  was  that  he  should  be  an 
elector  and  resident  of  the  district  or  county  which   he   represented. 
Furthermore,  a  senator  had  to  be  25  years  old.    The  Senate  was  not  granted 
the  power  to  initiate  legislation,  but  with  the  consent  of  the  House  of 
Delegates  could  amend  any  bill  except  a  money  bill.     (Hening,  I,  52.) 


273]  Representation  in  the  Colonial  Period.  19 

adopted  no  basis,  but  the  same  convention  that  drew  up  the 
constitution,  passed  an  ordinance  apportioning  the  Senate. 
This  apportionment  was  purely  arbitrary.  The  greatest  de- 
fect, however,  of  the  constitution  in  regard  to  representation  in 
the  Senate  was  its  failure  to  provide  for  future  apportionment. 
The  constitution  also  failed  to  provide  means  for  any  future 
amendments.  The  result  was  that  its  institutions  were  very 
firmly  fixed,  and  it  was  with  difficulty  that  any  measure  could 
be  carried  through  for  reform. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  STRUGGLE  FOB  EQUALIZING  REPRESENTATION. 

The  defects  of  representation  as  apportioned  by  the  Consti- 
tution of  1776  were  soon  observed,  and  by  no  one  more 
quickly  than  by  Jefferson.1  In  1782,  in  his  "Notes  on  Vir- 
ginia," he  stated  his  views  in  regard  to  representation,  and 
pointed  out  the  great  inequality,  how  the  Tidewater  section 
with  about  two-fifths  of  the  fighting  men  had  one  half  of  the 
senators  and  lacked  only  four  of  having  a  majority  in  the 
House  of  Delegates.2  He  desired  a  constitutional  convention 
to  rectify  the  evils  of  the  constitution,  which,  he  claimed,  was 
not  a  people's  constitution,  having  been  adopted  by  a  legislative 
body  without  ratification  by  the  people.3 

1  Jefferson  was  not  a  member  of  the  convention  which  drafted  the  consti- 
tution, but  was  attending  Congress  in  Philadelphia ;  but,  interested  in  the 
affairs  of  the  State,  he  sent  a  draft  of  a  constitution  to  Williamsburg.  A 
plan  had  already  been  adopted,  but  to  this  his  preamble  was  prefixed. 
A  few  years  ago  this  proposed  constitution  was  found  and  published  in  P. 
L.  Ford's  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  See  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  7,  pp.  405, 
406,  and  Va.  Convention,  1829-30,  p.  160. 

3  Jefferson  said :  "  A  majority  of  the  men  in  the  State  who  pay  and  fight 
for  its  support  are  unrepresented  in  the  Legislature.  Among  those  who 
share  the  representation,  the  shares  are  very  unequal.  Thus  the  county  of 
Warwick  with  100  fighting  men  has  an  equal  representation  with  the  county 
of  Loudoun  which  has  1746."  His  statistics  show  that  the  Tidewater 
section  with  19,012  fighting  men  had  71  delegates  and  12  senators ;  that 
Piedmont  with  18,828  fighting  men  had  only  46  delegates  and  8  senators ; 
that  the  Valley  with  7,673  fighting  men  had  only  16  delegates  and  2 
senators ;  and  that  the  Trans- Alleghany  district  with  4458  fighting  men  had 
16  delegates  and  2  senators.  (Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  8,  p.  360.) 

3  Jefferson  objected  to  the  constitution  on  account  of  (1)  the  unequal 
representation,  (2)  the  restricted  suffrage  and  (3)  the  great  power  given  to 
the  Legislature  ( Works,  vol.  8,  pp.  361-372). 
20 


275]       The  Struggle  for  Equalizing  Representation.  21 

A  constitutional  convention  was  now  discussed  in  the  State, 
and  there  was  some  probability  that  the  Legislature  would 
take  steps  to  call  one,  so  Jefferson  drew  up  a  plan  for  a  new 
constitution.  This  plan,  so  far  as  representation  was  concerned, 
favored  the  qualified  voters  as  a  basis  of  apportionment.1 
Jefferson  intended  to  make  a  fight  for  calling  a  convention, 
but,  being  sent  to  France  by  Congress,  he  entrusted  the  work 
to  Madison.  At  the  May  session  of  the  Assembly,  1784,  the 
matter  was  brought  up,2  and  a  bill  for  a  constitutional  con- 
vention was  introduced.  Madison  worked  hard  for  the 
measure,  and  delivered  a  speech  in  which  he  emphasized  the 
inequality  of  representation  with  no  provision  for  reappor- 
tionments,3  but  the  bill  failed.  The  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture in  favor  of  a  convention  with  unlimited  powers  were 
small  in  number,  but  "  included  most  of  the  young  men  of 
education  and  talent."  Many  were  willing  to  call  a  conven- 
tion for  specified  amendments,  but  no  activity  was  displayed 
for  this  qualified  plan.4  Madison  wrote  that  the  public  did 
not  seem  to  be  at  all  aroused  by  the  scheme,  and  took  little 
interest  in  it.5 


1  The  House  of  Delegates  was  to  be  not  more  than  300  nor  less  than  100. 
The  State  was  to  be  divided  into  senatorial  districts,  and  each  county  should 
elect  four  senatorial  electors  for  each  delegate  that  it  sent  to  the  Legisla- 
ture. The  senatorial  electors  in  every  district  should  meet  and  elect  one 
senator  for  every  six  delegates  to  whom  the  district  was  entitled.  This 
scheme  was  too  complicated,  but  the  representation  in  the  Senate  would 
have  been  equal.  See  Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  8,  pp.  441-454. 

*  Journal  of  H.  of  Del.  (1784),  pp.  55,  70,  71.  Mr.  Stuart  of  Augusta 
County  presented  a  petition,  which,  among  other  things,  asked  for  a  consti- 
tutional convention.  This  was  referred  to  the  Committee  of  Propositions 
and  Grievances,  which  reported  favorably.  Patrick  Henry  was  a  member 
of  the  Assembly  at  the  time,  and  violently  opposed  the  measure,  which, 
after  a  heated  debate  of  two  days,  was  defeated  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole.  It  was  asserted  the  General  Assembly  had  no  right  to  act  on  the 
matter  at  all.  See  Madison's  Works,  vol.  I,  pp.  81,  86,  90. 

3  Madison's  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  82.  4  Ibid,  vol.  I,  p.  86. 

5  Ibid.,  vol.  I,  p.  90.  (Letter  to  Jefferson.)  The  following  year  he  wrote 
that  the  proposition  was  gaining  ground.  (Madison's  Works,  vol.  I,  p.  154.) 


22  Representation  in  Virginia.  [276 

Between  1784  and  1790  little  was  done  for  calling  a  consti- 
tutional convention.  Petitions  were  presented  to  the  Legisla- 
ture nearly  every  session  after  1790,  asking  that  steps  be  taken 
to  equalize  representation,  and  petitions  from  Patrick  and 
Henry  counties  were  regularly  looked  for,1  but  no  decided 
effort  was  made  by  the  General  Assembly  till  1806.  In  this 
year,  Patrick  and  Henry  again  presented  their  petitions  for 
calling  a  convention.2  A  convention  bill  was  brought  in,  and 
very  ably  advocated,  but  was  defeated  by  a  considerable 
majority.3  The  matter  was  undoubtedly  considered  of  great 
importance.  The  main  object  was  to  equalize  representation. 
The  speeches  show  this.  The  system  of  representation  was 
branded  as  a  violation  of  the  principles  of  republican  govern- 
ment in  that  the  minority  was  really  ruling  the  State.  It  was 
a  financial  burden  to  the  State  to  have  two  delegates  from  each 
county.  In  regard  to  the  Senate  the  apportionment  was 
emphasized  as  being  very  unjust.4  From  1807  to  1815,  many 
efforts  were  made  for  a  convention  to  equalize  representation 
and  to  establish  other  reforms,  but  all  in  vain.5 


1  Va.  Convention  (1829-30),  p.  81.  *  Enquirer,  January  28,  1806. 

'Enquirer,  February  1,  1806. 

4  See  speeches  in  the  Enquirer,  Jan.  and  Feb.,  1806.  According  to  the  census 
of  1800,  the  district  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  had  a  white  population  of  177,476 
and  the  East,  336,389 ;  yet  the  West  had  only  four  senators,  and  the  East,  twenty. 

5  In  1807,  Patrick,  Henry  and  Pittsylvania  presented  petitions  to  the 
Legislature.     A  bill  for  a  convention  was  introduced  and  passed  the  House 
of  Delegates,  but  was  side-tracked  in  the  Senate.     (Jour,  of  H.  of  Del. 
(1806-7),  pp.  67,  68,  and  Enquirer,  Jan.   1,  1807.)     From;  1807  to  1810 
many  petitions  were  presented  to  the  Legislature,  but  no   strenuous  efforts 
were   made  for  a  convention.     At  the  session  of  1810-11,  renewed  zeal 
was  displayed.    A  petition  from  Accomac  asked   for  a  readjustment  of 
representation  and  an  extension  of  suffrage.     Again  a  bill  was  introduced 
to  submit  the  question  to  the  people,  but  was  defeated  by  the  close  vote  of 
82  to  79.    Of  this  Assembly,  James  Monroe  was  a  member.     He  opposed 
the  bill,  stating  that  he  had  seen  "democracy  run  wild  in  France,"  and  that 
it  would  never  do  to  make  Virginia  more  democratic.     ( Va.  Convention. 
(1829-30),  p.  173,  and  Enquirer,  Jan.  31,  1811.)     At  the  following  sessions 
(1811-12,  1812-13,  1813-14,  and  1814-15)  of  the  Legislature,  petitions 
were  presented  for  a  convention,  and  bills  introduced,  but  nothing  was 
accomplished.     (See  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  and  Enquirer.) 


277]       The  Struggle  for  Equalizing  Representation.  23 

At  the  session  of  the  General  Assembly  (1815-16)  the  fight 
for  a  convention,  due  to  the  inequality  of  representation,  became 
a  prominent  one.1  The  advocates  of  a  convention  again 
introduced  a  bill  to  take  the  vote  of  the  people,  but  the 
measure  was  defeated  in  the  House  of  Delegates  by  the  close 
vote  of  90  to  87.2 

Frequent  petitions  for  reform,  and  just  as  frequent  refusals 
on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly  to  take  any  action  in 
that  direction,  necessarily  called  for  other  expressions  on  the 
part  of  the  people.  At  the  April  elections  (1816)  polls  were 
taken  in  several  counties  on  the  subject  of  a  convention.3 
Addresses  were  circulated  in  the  State,  and  long  discussions 
appeared  in  the  newspapers  on  the  question  of  a  convention 
and  the  representative  system.  The  fight  over  the  convention 
and  representation  at  this  period  was  becoming  a  sectional  one. 
That  section  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  Mountains,  which  here- 
after we  shall  designate  simply  as  the  West,  was  clamoring 
for  a  convention  to  apportion  representation  on  a  more  equit- 
able basis,  in  order  that  it  might  have  its  proper  representation 
in  the  General  Assembly,  while  that  section  east  of  the  Blue 
Ridge,  usually  spoken  of  simply  as  the  East,  was  holding  back, 
unwilling  to  give  up  any  of  its  power.  As  yet  the  inequality 
of  representation  in  the  House  of  Delegates,  though  great 
between  counties,  was  very  small  with  regard-  to  the  two  great 
sections  of  the  State.  The  bone  of  contention  was  the  Senate. 
The  western  people  could  see  no  justice  in  an  apportionment 
which  gave  their  section,  with  a  white  population  in  1815  of 
about  233,469,  only  four  senators,  while  the  East,  with  a  white 
population  of  about  342,781,  had  twenty  senators ;  or,  in  other 


1  Jour,  of  H.  of  Dd.  (1815-16),  pp.  33,  37.  Petitions  from  Ohio,  Patrick, 
Rockingham,  Brooke,  Frederick,  Hampshire,  Greenbrier  and  Shenandoah 
counties. 

'Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1815-16),  pp.  60,  167;  and  Enquirer,  Dec.,  1815, 
and  Jan.  and  Feb.,  1816. 

3  Enquirer,  April  13,  1816. 


24  Representation  in  Virginia.  [278 

words,  that  one  man  in  the  East  should  have  the  same  repre- 
sentation in  the  Senate  as  three  men  in  the  West.1 

Thus  matters  stood  when,  in  May,  1816,  twenty-two  of 
the  most  prominent  men  of  western  and  northern  Virginia  met 
at  Winchester  to  consider  some  plan  for  calling  a  constitutional 
convention.  They  issued  an  address  asserting  that  the  Legis- 
lature in  refusing  to  take  the  voice  of  the  people  on  the  question 
of  calling  a  convention  to  reapportion  representation  had 
violated  the  Virginia  Bill  of  Rights,  and  that  the  then 
existing  basis  of  representation  was  an  "  absolute  mockery  of 
the  principle  of  free  government."  The  people  were  urged  ta 
put  an  end  to  this  condition  of  affairs,  and,  for  this  purpose, 
to  meet  at  their  respective  court-houses  on  July  4  following, 
and  to  consider  the  most  expedient  way  for  getting  a  conven- 
tion. Each  county  was  requested  to  elect  two  delegates  to 
meet  in  convention  at  Staunton  on  August  19,  to  perfect  plans 
of  action.2  Following  the  publication  of  this  address  much 
discussion  ensued  on  the  subject  of  representation  ;  one  side 
claiming  that  representation  should  be  based  on  wealth  and 
slave  population  as  well  as  white  population,  while  the  other 
stood  for  white  population  only  as  the  basis.  Many  county 
meetings  were  held  and  resolutions  passed  on  the  basis  question, 

1 A  writer  of  the  time  insisted  that  the  West  bore  ill  will  towards  the 
East,  because  the  East  had  too  great  a  representation,  and  had  full  control 
of  the  State  government.  He  stated  that  this  jealousy  and  the  difference 
between  the  interests  of  the  two  sections  would  exist  ''  so  long  as  one  part 
of  the  State  legislates  for  the  other  part."  (Enquirer,  June  8,  1816.) 
Representation  was  in  such  a  bad  state  that  it  even  attracted  the  attention 
of  Matthew  Gary,  who  in  the  Olive  Branch  (1815)  quoted  statistics  show- 
ing that  in  Warwick  the  whole  population  (including  negroes)  was  only 
one-eleventh  that  of  Frederick  or  Loudoun.  This  was  considered  as 
iniquitous  as  the  borough  system  of  England  (Olive  Branch,  p.  411). 
Loudoun  and  Frederick,  represented  according  to  white  population  in  the 
same  proportion  as  Warwick,  would  have  been  entitled  to  44  delegates  each, 
instead  of  two.  (Enquirer,  June  12,  1816.) 

8  See  Address,  Enquirer,  June  12,  1816.  It  was  signed  by  22  persons, 
representing  the  counties  of  Berkeley,  Frederick,  Harrison,  Wood,  Monon- 
galia,  Fauquier,  Loudoun,  Fairfax,  Hampshire,  Jefferson  and  Brooke. 


279]       The  Struggle  for  Equalizing  Representation.  25 

and  delegates  elected  to  the  Staunton  Convention.1  This  con- 
vention met  at  Staunton,  August  19,  1816.  Thirty-six  coun- 
ties were  represented,  and  two  others  elected  delegates  who 
were  unable  to  attend.  Representation  was  the  chief  point  of 
discussion,  and  a  memorial  was  drawn  up,  to  he  presented  to 
the  Legislature,  asking  it  to  pass  a  bill  submitting  to  the 
voters  the  question  whether  or  not  a  convention  should  be 
called  to  equalize  representation  on  the  white  population  as  a 
basis.2 

This  memorial  was  presented  to  the  Legislature3  at  its  next 
session  (1816-17),  and  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  which 
Philip  Doddridge  was  chairman.  The  committee  reported  a 
bill  in  favor  of  a  convention,4  which  with  amendments  passed 
the  House  of  Delegates,  but  was  rejected  by  the  Senate.5 

1  See  series  of  articles  in  Enquirer,  from  June  19  to  Sept.  7,  1816 ;  also 
Jefferson's  Works,  vol.  7,  p.  9. 

8  See  Proceedings  in  Enquirer,  Aug.  28  and  31,  1816.  The  memorial 
stated  that,  in  1802,  1803,  1805, 1806,  1807,  1810, 1811  and  1815,  petitions 
emphasizing  the  inequality  of  representation,  were  presented  to  the  Legis- 
lature and  rejected,  and  that  an  actual  vote  had  been  taken  on  calling  a 
convention  in  seven  counties,  and  in  these  a  large  majority  favored  a 
convention.  This  meeting  in  Staunton  also  recommended  a  form  of  a 
memorial  for  the  counties.  There  was  some  talk  of  calling  a  general  con- 
vention to  draw  up  a  constitution  without  recourse  to  the  Legislature,  but 
the  advocates  of  this  high  handed  measure  were  few  in  number.  Of  the 
36  counties  represented  at  Staunton,  24  were  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  and 
12,  east. 

'Sixteen  petitions  from  counties  were  also  presented  (Enquirer,  Dec., 
1816,  and  Jan.  and  Feb.,  1817  ;  also  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1816-17),  pp.  28, 
31,  37,  82). 

4  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1816-17),  pp.  28,  86,  87.  The  report  showed  that 
in  House  of  Delegates  of  200  (the  number  at  the  time)  based  on  white 
population  of  1810,  Tidewater  ought  to  have  46,  while  it  had  64 ;  Piedmont, 
76  instead  of  70  ;  Valley,  44  instead  of  28,  and  Trans-Alleghany,  34  instead 
of  38. 

6  Enquirer,  Feb.,  13,  1817;  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1816-17),  pp.  184,  203. 
The  idea  was  a  limited  convention,  (1)  to  equalize  representation,  (2)  to 
equalize  taxation  and  (3)  to  provide  means  for  future  amendments  to  the 
constitution.  This  bill  was  amended  in  the  House  to  include  an  extension 
of  suffrage. 


26  Representation  in  Virginia.  [280 

The  defeat  of  this  measure  was  a  great  disappointment  to 
the  advocates  of  reform.  The  Legislature  saw  that  something 
had  to  be  done,  so  brought  in  a  bill  .to  rearrange  the  senatorial 
districts,1  so  as  to  remove  the  glaring  inequality  of  representa- 
tion in  the  Senate.  This  measure  became  a  law.  The  result 
was  a  reapportionment  of  the  Senate  practically  based  on  the 
white  population  of  1810.  The  East  received  fifteen  instead 
of  twenty,  while  the  West  got  nine  instead  of  four  senators.2 
For  a  time  popular  clamor  was  allayed,  although  the  West 
was  not  satisfied  entirely  with  the  apportionment  in  the  Senate, 
as  its  population  had  increased  much  since  1810.  In  1824  a 
constitutional  convention  was  again  agitated,  and  polls  on  the 
question  were  taken  by  twenty-eight  counties  and  the  cities  of 
Lynchburg,  Richmond  and  Petersburg,  and  of  these  only  five 
gave  majorities  in  opposition  to  a  convention.3  In  1824  and 
1825,  much  discussion  appeared  in  the  newspapers  on  a  con- 
vention to  equalize  representation  on  the  white  basis.4  Jeffer- 
son, though  in  retirement  at  Monticello,  still  took  an  interest 

lJour.  ofH.  ofDd.  (1816-17),  pp.  184,  202,  227. 

'Acts  of  Assembly  (1816-17),  pp.  7,  8,  9.  The  House  of  Delegates  could 
not  constitutionally  be  changed.  Previous  to  1816,  it  was  thought  the 
Legislature  could  not  reapportion  the  Senate,  but  now  the  constitutional 
lawyers  claimed,  since  the  Constitution  of  1776  did  not  contain  the  apportion- 
ment of  the  Senate,  but  simply  said  that  the  State  was  to  be  divided  into 
24  senatorial  districts,  that  the  Legislature  had  the  power  to  reapportion 
the  Senate. 

3  Enquirer,  April  and  May,  1824.    Most  of  the  counties  were  Eastern  ones, 
and  wanted  a  convention  not  to  change  representation,  but  for  other  reforms. 

4  Enquirer,  1824  and  1825.    This  paper  favored  a  convention.    Writers  on 
one  side  endeavored  to  expose  the  misrule  and  unfairness  of  a  rule  by  a 
minority,  while  others  tried  to  excite  alarm  among  the  people,  claiming 
that  the  move  to  equalize  representation  was  only  a  plan  to  destroy  an 
equitable  government  and  to  overthrow  slave  property.     There  was  great 
difference  between  the  two  sections  on  slavery.     The  West,  especially  the 
northwestern  section,  was  settled  by  many  Northerners,  and  there  were  few 
slaves  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge  and  scarcely  any  west  of  the  Alleghany,  many 
of  the  people  being  opposed  to  the  institution.    This  fact  came  out  now. 
The  East  feared  that  with  the  white  basis  the  government  would  pass  into 
the  hands  of  the  West,  and  a  policy  prejudicial  to  slavery  would  be  pursued. 


281]        The  Struggle  for  Equalizing  Representation.  27 

in  the  affairs  of  his  State,  and  he  now  came  out  with  an  open 
letter  in  the  Enquirer  advocating  reform  in  representation.1 
To  the  Legislature  (1824—25)  petitions  for  a  convention  were 
presented  from  several  counties.  A  bill  to  submit  the  question 
to  the  people  was  prepared,  and  passed  the  House  of  Delegates, 
but  was  rejected  by  the  Senate.2  This  aroused  the  people, 
and  a  vigorous  exertion  was  now  made  for  measures  of  reform. 
Loudoun  County  took  the  initiative.  A  vote  was  taken, 
and  stood  three  hundred  and  eighty  in  favor  of  a  convention 
and  eight  in  opposition  to  it.  A  meeting  was  then  held, 
resolutions  were  passed  favoring  a  general  convention  of  all  the 
advocates  of  reform  at  Staunton  on  July  25,  1825,  and  a 
corresponding  committee  of  ten  was  appointed  to  issue  an 
address  to  all  the  counties  of  the  State,  calling  upon  them  to 
exert  themselves  in  favor  of  this  convention.3 


1  Enquirer,  April  27,  1824.  Jefferson  said  in  part :  "  The  basis  of  our 
constitution  is  in  opposition  to  the  principle  of  equal  political  rights,  refusing 
to  all  but  freeholders  any  participation  in  the  natural  right  of  self  govern- 
ment. The  exclusion  of  a  majority  of  our  freemen  from  the  right  of  repre- 
sentation is  merely  arbitrary  and  an  assumption  of  the  minority  over  the 
majority.  ...  In  the  representative  privilege  the  equality  of  political 
rights  is  entirely  prostrated  by  our  constitution.  .  .  .  Upon  what  principle 
of  right  or  reason  can  any  one  justify  the  giving  to  every  citizen  of  Warwick 
as  much  weight  in  the  government  as  to  22  equal  citizens  in  Loudoun  ?  " 

8 See  Jour,  of  H.  of  Dd.  (1824-25),  pp.  17,  149  Bill;  in  Documents 
attached  to  Journal;  Enquirer,  Feb.  10,  1825. 

3  Enquirer,  May  13,  1825.  The  papers  from  this  date  to  July  25  are  filled 
with  discussion  on  this  proposition.  Those  advocating  a  constitutional 
convention  said  an  alarm  must  be  sounded  so  loud  to  the  General  Assembly 
as  to  procure  a  just  respect  of  their  rights.  Meetings  were  held  favoring 
the  convention  at  Staunton,  and  electing  delegates  to  the  same ;  and  editorials 
in  such  papers  as  the  Enquirer,  Winchester  Republican,  Alexandria  Herald, 
and  Alexandria  Gazette  advocated  the  movement.  A  majority  of  the 
counties  that  elected  delegates  were  in  the  West,  yet  many  in  the  East 
favored  the  meeting  at  Staunton.  Many  Eastern  counties,  however,  opposed 
the  meeting  as  pernicious  and  dangerous,  and  claimed  that  it  was  bad 
precedent  to  have  large  bodies  meeting  in  the  State.  Benjamin  Watkins 
Leigh  under  the  nom-de-plume  of  "  Mason  of  '76  "  wrote  a  series  of  articles 
in  opposition  to  the  meeting  at  Staunton  and  a  constitutional  convention. 
It  is  said  he  asserted  that  a  constitutional  convention  could  not  be  held 


28  Representation  in  Virginia.  [282 

In  pursuance  of  this  call,  a  large  number  of  delegates 
assembled  at  Staunton,  July  25,  1825.  There  were  one 
hundred  and  seven  delegates  representing  thirty-five  counties 
and  two  cities.1  Resolutions  were  adopted  in  favor  (1)  of 
reducing  the  House  of  Delegates,  (2)  of  apportioning  the 
members  of  the  General  Assembly  on  the  free  white  population, 
and  (3)  of  extending  the  right  of  suffrage.  A  form  of  a 
memorial,  to  be  signed  and  presented  to  the  Legislature  by  the 
friends  of  reform,  was  also  adopted.2  That  so  many  delegates 
should  have  appeared  from  counties  hundreds  of  miles  from 
Staunton,  when  travel  was  such  a  difficult  thing,  is  a  strong 
indication  of  the  feeling  of  the  people,  and  it  is  no  surprise 
that  following  this  meeting  every  effort  was  put  forth  by  the 
reformers  to  influence  the  coming  Legislature  in  favor  of  a 
constitutional  convention,  or  that  the  conservative  element 
was  likewise  active.  A  glance  at  the  newspapers  of  the  period 
shows  how  active  the  people  were.3 

with  safety  while  Jefferson  was  alive.  Feeling  ran  high,  the  East 
denouncing  the  West,  claiming  that  the  whole  move  was  to  oppress  slave 
property.  (Enquirer,  May  13,  20,  31 ;  June  3, 10, 14, 17,  21,  28 ;  July  1,  5, 
8,  12,  15,  19,  22,  and  August  2,  16,  1825.) 

1  Five  counties  elected  delegates  who  did  not  attend. 

3  Journal  of  Proceedings,  Enquirer,  August  11,  1825.  See  also  Enquirer, 
July  29,  Aug.  2,  5,  9,  1825.  This  convention  was  no  small  thing.  It 
remained  in  session  for  one  week.  The  resolutions  were  unanimously 
adopted  except  the  clause  on  the  extension  of  suffrage  against  which  two 
votes  were  recorded.  We  are  told  that  there  were  more  people  in  Staunton 
than  ever  seen  there  before,  that  all  the  houses  in  the  town  were  filled,  and 
that  spectators  had  come  from  all  parts  of  the  State.  The  church  in  which 
the  convention  sat,  was  always  crowded. 

3  See  Enquirer,  Aug.,  Sept.,  Oct.  and  Nov.,  1825.  Resolutions  were  passed 
in  different  counties,  some  for  and  some  against  a  convention,  and  memorials 
to  be  presented  to  the  Legislature  were  circulated.  There  were  two  forms 
of  memorials,  the  one  drawn  up  by  the  Staunton  Convention,  and  the  other 
by  anti-reformers  who  were  opposed  to  taking  the  vote  of  the  people  on  a 
convention.  The  latter  was  circulated  in  the  East  and  spoke  in  a  very  con- 
temptuous way  of  the  reformers.  This  caused  a  bitter  discussion  which 
showed  that  the  main  fight  was  still  over  representation.  The  East  was 
willing  for  it  to  stand  as  it  was,  while  the  West  wanted  a  change  in  the 
representative  basis  and  white  population  only  as  that  basis.  (Enquirer, 
Aug.  13,  16,  23;  Sept.  13,  26;  Oct.  4,  7,  11,  21,  1825.) 


283]        The  Struggle  for  Equalizing  Representation.  29 

When  the  Legislature  met  in  December  (1825),  some  fifty 
odd  petitions  praying  for  a  convention,  and  some  thirty  odd 
in  opposition,  were  presented.1  A  special  committee  was 
appointed  by  the  House  of  Delegates  to  consider  these  petitions. 
It  reported  a  bill  favoring  the  call  of  a  convention,  but  the 
measure  was  defeated.2  A  convention  to  equalize  represen- 
tation continued  to  be  discussed,3  and  at  the  next  session  of 
the  Legislature  a  bill  was  again  reported  in  favor  of  submit- 
ting the  question  to  the  people,  and  again  it  was  defeated.4 

This  was  quite  exasperating  to  the  members  of  the  Legis- 
lature who  wanted  a  convention  it  mattered  not  on  what  basis. 
They  held  a  meeting  before  the  Legislature  adjourned,  and 

1 A  majority  of  the  petitions  for  a  convention  were  from  the  West,  but 
many  were  from  the  Piedmont,  while  only  one  (from  Greenbrier)  from  the 
West  was  in  opposition.  See  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1825-26),  pp.  12,  13,  15, 
17,  20,  24,  27,  29,  33,  37,  41,  49,  55,  56,  93. 

'Jour.  ofH.  of  Del.  (1825-26),  pp.  15,  17,  103,  104.  The  committee  was 
composed  of  24  members,  one  from  each  senatorial  district.  In  reporting 
it  said  that  45  counties  had  presented  memorials  in  favor  of  a  convention, 
signed  by  12,175  persons ;  and  26  counties,  memorials  against  a  convention 
signed  by  4328  persons.  Eleven  counties,  including  Richmond  City,  had 
presented  memorials  both  pro  and  con,  those  favoring  a  convention  being 
signed  by  2411,  and  those  against,  by  2091  persons.  This  makes  a  total  of 
20,905  signatures,  and  very  probably  all  were  male  citizens  and  mostly 
voters.  Now  the  votes  cast  on  the  convention  question  in  1828  were  in  all 
38,523  (Governor's  Mess.,  Jour.,  1828-29,  Appendix)  ;  so  it  is  probably  that 
about  one  half  of  the  voters  of  the  State  petitioned  to  the  Legislature  at 
this  time,  which  shows  what  a  fight  was  being  waged  over  the  question.  The 
bill  which  the  committee  reported,  provided  for  a  convention  with  unlimited 
powers  (Bill,  Appendix  to  Jour.,  1825-26),  and  was  defeated  by  a  close  vote 
of  101  to  94. 

'Enquirer,  Sept.  1,  1896. 

^Enquirer,  Jan.  23,  27,  and  Feb.  8,  10,  1827.  The  vote  was  107  to  103. 
The  measure  would  have  passed,  had  not  the  question  of  what  basis  the 
convention  itself  should  be  organized  upon,  been  brought  up.  The  West 
wanted  a  bill,  providing  for  a  convention  based  on  the  white  population 
only,  to  be  submitted  to  the  people.  The  East  was  opposed  to  this,  and 
wanted  the  county  system.  Some  of  the  strong  advocates  of  a  convention 
voted  against  the  bill  to  take  the  sense  of  the  people  on  the  simple  question 
of  "  Convention  "  or  "  No  Convention,"  being  unwilling  for  the  people  to 
vote  on  it,  not  knowing  what  basis  the  convention  would  be  organized  upon. 


30  Representation  in  Virginia.  [284 

asserted  that  the  members  from  the  larger  counties  favored  a 
convention,  and  that  a  majority  of  the  people  were  anxious 
for  one ;  so  they  recommended  to  the  voters  of  every  county 
to  instruct  their  delegates  how  to  vote  in  the  next  Legislature 
on  this  question.1  At  the  April  elections  (1827)  some  of  the 
counties  took  a  vote  on  a  convention,  and,  this  being  the  issue, 
most  of  the  candidates  were  probably  required  by  their 
constituents  to  pledge  themselves  either  for  or  against  a 
convention.2 

When  the  Legislature  met  in  December  (1827)  a  bill  was 
introduced  to  submit  to  the  vote  of  the  freeholders  the 
question  of  a  "  Convention  "  or  "  No  Convention,"  and  it 
passed  the  House  of  Delegates  by  a  vote  of  114  to  86,  and  the 
Senate  by  a  vote  of  14  to  10.3  Thus  after  a  fight  which  had 
been  waged  with  more  or  less  vigor  for  fifty  years,  the  Legisla- 
ture at  last  submitted  the  question  to  the  qualified  voters. 
Polls  were  opened  in  all  the  counties  on  their  respective 
court-days  in  April,  May  and  June,  and  the  returns  show  that 
21,896  votes  were  cast  for,  and  16,637  against  a  convention.4 

It  now  became  necessary  for  the  Legislature  (1828-29)  to 
settle  upon  some  plan  of  organization  for  the  convention. 
The  Legislature  was  divided  into  two  parties,  each  wanting 
to  control  the  convention.  The  reformers  were  for  the  white 
population  as  the  basis  of  organization,  while  the  conservative 
party  wanted  white  population  and  taxation  combined,  or 
Federal  Numbers,  or  the  then  existing  county  system.  The 
reformers  were  mostly  from  the  West,  with  the  exception  of 
delegates  from  a  few  large  counties  of  the  Piedmont  section, 
while  the  other  party  was  entirely  from  the  East.  The  white 
basis  men  were  very  active,  and  held  several  caucuses,  with 

1  Enquirer,  March  8,  1827.       *  Enquirer,  April,  1827.    Election  Returns. 

8  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1827-28),  pp.  16,  23,  33,  131 ;  Enquirer,  Dec.  15, 
1827,  and  Feb.  2,  1828;  Acts  of  Assembly  (1827-28),  p.  18.  The  reformers 
attempted  to  have  the  question  submitted  to  all  white  male  citizens  over 
21  years  of  age,  but  this  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  108  to  91. 

4  See  Documents  with  Governor's  Mess.,  Appendix  to  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del. 
(1828-29),  p.  50. 


285]       The  Struggle  for  Equalizing  Representation.           31 

Philip  Doddridge  as  their  leader,  declaring  that  they  would 
accept  no  basis  of  organization  except  the  white  basis.  Long 
speeches  were  made  in  the  Legislature,  and  articles  appeared 
in  the  papers  as  to  the  proper  basis  for  the  convention.1  A 
bill  was  reported  favoring  Federal  Numbers  as  the  basis  of 
organization ;  four  delegates  from  each  of  the  twenty-two 
congressional  districts.2  After  many  amendments  had  been 
offered  and  rejected,3  a  bill,  making  the  basis  of  organization 
the  county  system  with  slight  modifications,  passed  the  House 
of  Delegates.4  The  Senate  rejected  this,  and  offered  a  substi- 
tute, making  the  senatorial  districts  the  basis,  each  district  to 
elect  four  delegates.  The  House  of  Delegates  accepted  this.5 
Thus  the  law 6  for  the  organization  of  the  convention  took  the 
senatorial  districts  as  a  basis,7  and  provided  for  an  election  of 
delegates  at  the  May  terms  of  the  county  courts.  The 
delegates  were  to  assemble  in  Richmond  on  the  first  Monday 
in  October,  1829.  These  were  the  final  arrangements  for  the 
constitutional  convention  for  which  the  reform  party,  with 
Jefferson  as  its  founder,  had  fought  so  long  and  faithfully. 

1  Enquirer,  Dec.  4,  16,  23,  27,  1828;  Jan.  8,  13,  15,  22,  and  Feb.  10,  12, 
1829.  The  editor  of  the  Enquirer  first  advocated  the  senatorial  districts, 
then  the  submitting  of  the  question  of  organization  to  the  voters,  and  finally 
the  white  basis. 

'Jour.  ofH.  of  Del.  (1828-29),  p.  70;  also  Bill  in  Appendix. 

3  The  amendments  in  the  Appendix  show  that  no  less  than  12  plans  were 
offered.  The  most  important  were  (1)  Federal  Numbers,  (2)  white  basis,  (3) 
senatorial  districts,  and  (4)  county  system. 

*  The  measure  as  it  passed  the  House  of  Delegates  was  one  member  from 
each  county  under  8,000  inhabitants ;  those  with  8,000  or  nearly  to  have 
two,  and  for  every  4,000  over  8,000,  one  additional  delegate.  Jour,  of  H.  of 
Del  (1828-29),  p.  143. 

5  Enquirer,  Feb.  10,  12,  1829.         6  Acts  of  Assembly  (1828-29),  pp.  17-22. 

7  The  opposition  of  the  West  to  this  basis  was  very  strong.  Its  members 
with  a  few  exceptions  voted  against  this  plan.  They  argued  that  in  amend- 
ing the  fundamental  constitution  of  the  State,  all  citizens  should  be  equally 
represented.  The  plan  adopted,  however,  giving  36  delegates  to  the  West^ 
and  60  to  the  East,  based  on  the  white  population  of  1810  (for  this  is  what 
the  senatorial  districts  as  a  basis  meant),  made  each  Western  delegate 
represent  8,845  white  persons,  while  each  Eastern  delegate  represented  only 
6,261  whites. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  FIGHT  OVER  REPRESENTATION  IN  THE  CONVENTION 
OF  1829-30. 

The  Convention  assembled  in  the  Capitol  at  Richmond, 
October  5,  1829.  Its  ninety-six  members  were  among  the 
most  prominent  men  of  the  State,  and  many  of  them  had  a 
national  reputation.  It  is  probable  that  there  has  never  been 
in  the  United  States  a  state  constitutional  convention  in  which 
there  was  so  much  talent.  There  were  two  Ex-Presidents, 
Madison  and  Monroe ;  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States, 
Marshall;  several  who  were  or  had  been  United  States  Senators, 
and  many  who  during  their  lives  were  members  of  Congress, 
or  held  other  posts  of  honor.1  This  Convention  has  always 
been  regarded  as  one  of  the  greatest  assemblies  of  intellect 
ever  held  on  Virginia  soil.2 

The  Convention  began  its  work  by  selecting  James  Monroe 
as  President,3  and  by  appointing  four  committees,  one  of 
which  was  on  the  Legislative  Department.  Of  this  Madison 
was  Chairman.4  This  Committee  reported  October  24,  and 
so  far  as  representation  was  concerned  it  favored  the  white 


1  See  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  Va.  Convention,  1829-30,  pp.  3-4.  Lists 
of  Members. 

8  There  are  two  sketches  of  this  Convention :  one,  a  speech  by  Hugh  Blair 
Grigsby,  delivered  before  the  Virginia  Historical  Society,  Dec.  15,  1852, 
published  in  Va.  Hist.  Reporter,  vol.  I,  Richmond,  1854 :  the  other,  by 
Hugh  R.  Pleasants  in  Southern  Lnterary  Messenger,  vol.  7  (1851),  pp.  147  et 
aeq.,  and  pp.  297  et  seq.  There  is  a  painting  of  this  Convention  in  the 
Portrait  Gallery  of  the  Va.  State  Library. 

3  Debate*  of  Convention,  p.  1.  4Ibid.,  p.  23. 

32 


287]        The  Fight  over  Representation  in  1829-30.  33 

population  as  the  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  a 
reduction  of  its  number  to  not  less  than  one  hundred  and 
twenty,  but  not  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty.  In  regard 
to  the  Senate,  the  report  favored  no  change  at  all.1 

This  report  was  taken  up  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  then  was  waged  a  fierce  battle  in  which  some  of  the 
keenest  intellectual  swords  were  exercised.  The  reformers 
stood  for  the  white  population  as  the  basis  of  representation 
for  both  houses,  and  tried  to  amend  the  report  to  that  effect, 
while  the  conservatives  thought  that  the  true  basis  for  both 
houses  was  white  population  and  taxation  combined.  The 
latter  was  called  the  mixed  basis,  while  the  former  was  spoken 
of  as  the  white  basis. 

The  mixed  basis  was  the  Eastern  plan,  and  was  supported 
entirely  by  members  from  the  East.2  They  contended  that 
this  basis  was  the  only  means  of  giving  justice  and  protection 
to  property,  especially  slave  property.  The  white  basis  would 
put  the  government  in  the  hands  of  non-property  holders  to 
a  great  extent,  and  property  might  be  oppressed  with  heavy 
taxation.3  The  white  basis  would  give  representation  to  the 
labor  of  the  West  without  taxation,  while  the  labor  of  the 
East  would  be  unrepresented,  yet  taxed  ;  however,  in  the 
political  economy  of  the  country,  the  Western  laborer  would 
fill  the  same  place  as  the  slave.4  The  East,  furthermore, 
feared  that  the  internal  improvement  element  in  the  State 
would  gain  too  much  power  by  an  apportionment  on  the  white 
basis.6 


id.,  p.  39. 

2  The  two  parties  in  the  Convention  were  about  equally  divided.  The 
white-basis  men  were  the  36  delegates  from  the  West,  and  12  from  the 
larger  counties  of  the  Piedmont  section.  The  mixed-basis  party  were  the 
remaining  Eastern  members.  See  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  690. 

3Benj.  W.  Leigh's  Speech,  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  153.  The  best 
speeches  for  the  mixed  basis  were  by  Leigh,  Abel  P.  Upshur,  Robert 
Stanard,  Thomas  R.  Joynes  and  Governor  Giles.  Leigh  was  the  leader  of 
the  Eastern  party. 

*  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  153.  5  Ibid.,  pp.  127,  155, 

3 


34  Representation  in  Virginia.  [288 

It  was  further  argued  that  the  true  principle  of  govern- 
ment was  not  simply  a  rule  of  a  majority  of  members,  but  of 
a  majority  of  interests,  and  that  the  mixed  basis  was  a  happy 
combination  of  both  principles.1  The  whole  matter  comes 
to  this:  The  mixed  basis  was  to  the  interest  of  the  East, 
which,  holding  a  very  large  slave  population  and  paying  a 
large  per  cent,  of  the  taxes,  was  unwilling  to  entrust  the 
government  to  the  West,  where  the  people  were  essentially 
a  non-slaveholding  population,  and  many  of  anti-slavery 
sentiment.2 

The  advocates  of  the  white  basis  argued  from  the  Bill  of 
Rights  that  "  all  power  is  vested  in  and  consequently  derived 
from  the  people,"  which  would  be  true  in  regard  to  the  white 
basis  only,  as  the  mixed  basis  would  recognize  wealth  as  an 
element  in  granting  power.3  The  white  basis  conformed  to 
the  principle  that  a  majority  of  the  people  should  rule,  while 
the  mixed  basis  would  put  the  entire  control  of  the  govern- 
ment in  the  hands  of  the  minority,  and  that  a  minority  of 
plutocrats.4  A  millionaire  would  have,  under  the  white  basis, 
representation  no  greater  than  any  other  white  man,  but  by 
the  mixed  basis  he  would  be  granted  representation  equal  to 
that  of  many  hundreds  of  honest  citizens.5  In  short,  the 
West  took  this  view  of  the  matter,  that  one  white  man  was 
equal  to  any  other  in  a  political  sense,  whether  he  owned 
property  or  not,  and  thought  the  East  would  have  viewed  it 


1  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  66. 

"The  East  at  this  time  had  about  390,000  slaves,  while  the  West  had 
only  about  50,000.  (Debates,  p.  112.)  The  East  in  1828  paid  $321,926 
taxes,  and  the  West  $104,636.  For  full  statistics  see  Auditor's  Report  in 
Documents  appended  to  the  Journal  of  the  Convention. 

3  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  54,  55. 

4  Ibid.,  pp.  58,  106. 

5  Ibid.,  p.  58.    Mr.  John  R.  Cooke's  speech.     Good  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  natural  rights  of  man.     Principal  speeches  for  white  basis  were  by 
Philip  Doddridge,  Chapman  Johnson,  Alfred  H.  Powell  and  W.  F.  Gordon. 
Doddridge  was  the  leader  of  this  party. 


289]        The  Fight  over  Representation  in  1829-30.  35 

in  the  same  way  but  for  its  interest  in  slave  property.1  Fur- 
thermore, the  West  wanted  more  power  in  the  government,  so 
that  it  might  foster  its  internal  improvement  schemes. 

At  an  early  stage  of  the  debate 2  it  became  plain  that  the 
State  was  divided  into  two  sections  with  widely  conflicting 
interests,  and  that  each  was  jealous  of  the  other.  The  only 
way  by  which  the  wound  could  have  been  healed  would  have 
been  the  adoption  of  the  white  basis  with  a  spirit  of  trustful- 
ness in  the  West,  or  a  plan  providing  for  the  adoption  of  the 
white  basis  at  some  future  time.  But  the  East  was  not  will- 
ing to  sacrifice  its  principle  of  representation,  so  the  only  way 
left  was  to  try  to  adopt  some  compromise  basis.  As  stated, 
the  Legislative  Committee  reported  in  favor  of  the  white 
basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  a  permanent  Senate  as 
it  then  stood.  To  this  an  amendment  was  offered  to  substi- 
tute the  mixed  basis  for  the  House.3  To  this  amendment  an 
amendment  was  offered  to  apportion  the  House  of  Delegates 
on  the  mixed  basis  and  the  Senate  on  the  white  basis,  but  it 
was  defeated.4 


1  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  149.     A  careful  reading  of  the  Debates  shows 
that  the  inequality  of  the  distribution  of  slavery  and  taxation  in  the  two 
sections  produced  the  difference,  and  gave  rise  to  the  two  schemes  for  rep- 
resentation.    The  conditions  of  the  State  were  peculiar,  something  like  80 
per  cent,  of  the  slaves  being  in  the  East,  and  about  75  per  cent,  of  the 
taxes  being  paid  by  that  section,  so  it  was  but  natural  that  the  East  should 
be  reluctant  to  adopt  a  basis  of  representation  which  might  take  the  gov- 
ernment from  it.  and  give  the  control  to  a  section  with  conflicting  interests. 
Hence  the  East  advocated  the  mixed  basis. 

2  The  debate  was  throughout   lively  and   animated,  and  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  the  time  that  the  Convention  was  in  session  the  subject  of  repre- 
sentation occupied  the  attention  of  the  members. 

3  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  53.     Judge  Green's  amendment. 

4  This  amendment  was  proposed  by  Mr.  Scott,  of  Fauquier.     Debates  of 
Convention,  p.  148.     Monroe  now  saw  the  condition  of  affairs,  the  growing 
conflict  between  the  sections,  and,  though  infirm  in  health,  addressed  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.    He  said,  in  part :     "  If  we  go  home  without 
having  agreed  upon  a  constitution,  or  if  we  shall  agree  upon  one,  and  shall 
pass  it  by  a  small  majority,  what  will  be  the  effect  ?    An  appeal  will  imme- 
diately be  made  to  the  whole  community,  which  will  excite  repellant  feel- 


36  Representation  in  Virginia.  [290 

Finally,  after  a  debate  of  twenty-two  days,  the  first  amend- 
ment was  lost  by  the  vote  of  49  to  47.1  Many  plans  were 
now  proposed  in  regard  to  both  the  House  of  Delegates  and 
the  Senate,  but  there  seemed  to  be  no  possible  way  of  bring- 
ing about  an  agreement  for  a  constitutional  basis.2  After  two 

ings  in  one  section  against  the  other,  which  will  endanger  the  dismember- 
ment of  the  State Sectional  feelings  already  existing  will  be 

nursed  and  cherished,  they  will  increase  and  spread  till  at  length  one  part 
of  the  community  will  be  pitted  against  the  other,  and  a  deep  and  malig- 
nant acrimony  will  ensue,  and  where  will  it  end?  In  an  actual  dismem- 
berment of  the  Commonwealth,  which  would  be  the  worst  evil  that  can 

befall  us,  a  result  that  will  be  equally  calamitous  to  all It  is 

contended  by  those  who  reside  in  the  western  part  of  the  State  that  repre- 
sentation in  the  Legislature  should  be  based  on  white  population  alone ; 
it  is  contended,  on  the  other  hand,  by  those  who  live  in  the  East,  that  it 
should  be  based  on  the  principle  of  population  and  taxation  combined. 
These  are  the  two  grounds  of  difference.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  claim  of 
those  in  the  West  is  rational  under  particular  circumstances.  It  has  often 
been  suggested  here,  and  I  accord  with  that  view,  that,  putting  the  citizens 
in  an  equal  condition,  the  basis  which  they  claim  is  just.  It  is  founded 
on  the  natural  rights  of  man,  and  in  policy,  also,  under  certain  circum- 
stances. But  look  at  the  Atlantic  country  and  what  is  their  claim  ?  They 
are  the  oldest  portion  of  the  State,  they  have  a  species  of  property  in  a 
much  greater  amount  than  the  people  of  the  West,  and  this  they  wish  to 
protect.  It  consists  of  slaves.  I  am  satisfied  if  no  such  thing  as  slavery 
existed  that  the  people  of  the  Atlantic  border  would  meet  their  brethren 
of  the  West  upon  the  basis  of  a  majority  of  the  free  white  population." 
Monroe  then  advised  both  sides  to  yield  some,  and  declared  in  favor  of 
some  measure  by  which  "  representation  should  be  based  on  the  white  pop- 
ulation with  some  reasonable  protection  for  property."  He  thought  the 
best  plan  would  be  to  apportion  the  House  of  Delegates  on  the  white  basis 
and  the  Senate  on  the  mixed  basis.  These,  at  some  length,  are  the  views 
of  Monroe,  but  they  are  very  interesting  as  showing  the  light  in  which  a 
fair-minded  observer  viewed  the  situation.  Debates  of  Convention,  pp. 
148-151. 

1  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  321. 

8  One  plan  was  white  basis  for  House  of  Delegates  and  taxation  exclu- 
sively for  Senate;  another  (Leigh's),  Federal  Numbers  for  the  House  of 
Delegates.  Madison  and  Marshall  favored  the  lust,  but  Monroe  spoke  in 
opposition  to  it.  An  attempt  was  made  to  settle  the  Senate  first,  and  sev- 
eral propositions,  one  for  Federal  Numbers,  another  for  mixed  basis,  and  a 
third  for  taxation  exclusively,  were  offered  and  rejected.  Debates  of  Con- 
vention, pp.  321,  322,  361,  446,  447,  449. 


291]        The  Fight  over  Representation  in  1829-30.  37 

months  of  fruitless  debate  and  nothing  at  all  adopted  in 
regard  to  representation,  many  different  compromises  were 
proposed.  One  plan  was  to  drop  the  basis  question  entirely, 
and  simply  to  make  an  apportionment  in  both  branches  of  the 
Legislature  to  remove  the  glaring  inequalities  of  representa- 
tion;1 another  plan  was  for  an  average  of  the  three  bases 
(white  basis,  Federal  Numbers  and  mixed  basis),  as  a  consti- 
tutional basis.2  The  Western  members  held  repeated  confer- 
ences to  provide  some  plan  of  compromise,  and  after  careful 
consideration  they  presented  as  their  best  proposition  white 
basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates  and  Federal  Numbers  for  the 
Senate ;  a  reapportionment  to  be  made  every  ten  years  accord- 
ing to  this  principle.3  Chief  Justice  Marshall  now  declared 

1  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  455.  The  plan  of  William  F.  Gordon,  of 
Albemarle,  a  white-basis  man :  He  proposed  a  Senate  of  24,  10  from  the 
West  and  14  from  the  East;  and  a  House  of  Delegates  of  120:  26  from  the 
Trans-Alleghany  district,  24  from  the  Valley,  that  is,  50  from  the  West ; 
and  37  from  the  Piedmont,  33  from  Tidewater,  making  70  for  the  East. 

^Debates  of  Convention,  p.  494.  The  plan  of  Abel  B.  Upshur :  Senate 
of  30;  West,  13,  and  East,  17.  House  of  Delegates,  120;  West,  48,  and 
East,  72.  B.  W.  Leigh  offered  a  plan  for  a  House  of  Delegates  of  126 ; 
East,  77,  and  West,  49.  It  provided  that  the  number  of  counties  in  the 
West  could  be  increased  and  given  delegates  by  the  General  Assembly, 
provided  the  House  never  exceeded  130.  By  this  the  East  would  have 
always  retained  the  majority.  There  was  to  be  no  constitutional  basis,  but 
the  apportionment  proposed  was  on  an  average  between  the  white  and 
mixed  basis.  (Debates  of  Convention,  p.  547.) 

3  It  was  emphasized  that,  unless  this  plan  was  adopted,  the  West  would 
not  be  satisfied,  and  that  there  would  still  be  trouble  in  regard  to  the  basis 
question.  (Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  495-496.)  There  was  an  element 
from  the  West  that  thought  the  white  basis  should  be  the  only  principle 
for  both  Houses,  but  was  willing  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  Legislature  in 
such  a  way  that  one  section  could  not  overburden  another  by  high  taxes 
and  large  appropriations.  A  plan  to  this  effect  was  submitted  by  Alexan- 
der Campbell.  All  taxes  were  to  be  ad  valorem  and  on  a  fixed  ratio  between 
personal  and  real  property,  and  appropriations  for  internal  improvements 
in  either  the  East  or  West  to  be  in  "  proportion  to  the  amount  of  taxes 
paid  by  the  citizens"  in  those  sections.  The  East  viewed  such  limitations 
as  mere  "paper  guarantees,"  claiming  that,  if  the  West  once  controlled  the 
State  government,  it  would  be  an  easy  thing  to  call  another  constitutional 
convention  and  to  remove  all  restrictions.  (Debates,  p.  497.) 


38  Representation  in  Virginia.  [292 

his  views  on  the  basis  question.  Individually  he  favored 
Federal  Numbers,  but  was  willing  to  compromise  on  an  aver- 
age between  the  white  basis  and  Federal  Numbers.1  Every 
effort  was  made  for  reconciliation  and  for  removing  the  jeal- 
ousy existing  between  the  sections  of  the  State.  Madison, 
who  fifty-three  years  before  had  been  a  member  of  Virginia's 
first  constitutional  convention,  though  feeble,  pleaded  for 
agreement,  and  advocated  Federal  Numbers.2 

There  were  five  compromise  plans  before  the  Convention  : 
two  for  simple  apportionment  without  adopting  a  constitutional 
basis  •  one  for  an  average  of  the  white  basis,  mixed  basis  and 
Federal  Numbers  as  a  constitutional  basis ;  another  for  white 
basis  in  the  House  of  Delegates  and  Federal  Numbers  in  the 
Senate ;  and  another  for  an  average  between  the  white  basis 


1  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  498.  The  different  plans  for  a  basis  of  repre- 
sentation during  the  Convention  were,  (1)  white  population  alone  (i.  e.,  the 
white  basis),  (2)  mixed  basis,  (3)  Federal  Numbers,  (4)  total  population, 
and  (5)  taxation  exclusively.  To  show  the  difference,  I  have  prepared 
the  following : 

HOUSE  OF  DELEGATES  OF  120.  SENATE  OF  30. 

White  Basis.  East.          West.  East.  West. 

(Census,  1830) 64  56  16  14 

Mixed  Basis. 

r  (Taxes,    1828) , 

\  (Census,  1830) / 

Federal  Numbers. 

(1820) 81  39  20  10 

Total  Population. 

(1820) 86  34  21  9 

Taxation  only 91  29  22  8 

Cf.  census  of  1820, 1830;  Documents  of  Convention,  1850-51 ;  Documents  of 
Convention  of  1829-30  (Appendix  to  Journal),  and  Debates  (1829-30),  pp. 
140,  270,  499. 

8  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  537-538  and  573-574.  When  he  rose  to 
speak,  his  voice  was  so  weak  that  he  could  scarcely  be  heard,  and  the  mem- 
bers from  all  parts  of  the  halt  crowded  around  him,  wishing  to  hear  every 
word  that  fell  from  his  lips. 


293]        The  Fight  over  Representation  in  1829-30. 


39 


and  Federal  Numbers  for  both  houses.1  Once  more  a  lively 
debate  ensued,  and  it  became  evident  that  no  compromise  basis 
would  be  adopted ;  so  the  only  thing  was  to  make  a  more 
equitable  apportionment,  and  to  reduce  the  House  of  Delegates. 
The  reformers  opposed  every  basis  that  did  not  embody  the 
white  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  the  conservatives 
were  unwilling  to  yield  this.  John  Randolph  had  already 
suggested  an  adjournment  sine  die;2  and  there  was  talk  of  the 
West  seceding  from  the  Convention  in  a  body,3  so  great  was 
the  animosity  between  the  two  sections  over  this  basis  question. 
The  plans  were  now  narrowed  down  to  two,  Gordon's  and 
Upshur's.  These  had  been  so  modified  as  to  give  by  the 
former  a  majority  of  twenty-six  to  the  East  on  joint  ballot  of 


Mr.  Leigh's  plan - 


Mr.  Cooke's  plan... 


1  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  547.     To  give  some  idea  of  these  plans  I  add 

the  following  table : 

HOUSE  OP  DELEGATES. 
West.  East.  Total. 

{     Apportionment  without  adopting  ~| 
any    basis.    Calculations  on   white  >   50    70    120 
population,  1820.  J 

Apportionment  without  adopting" 
any    constitutional    basis.     Calcula- 
tions on  an  average  between  mixed 
basis  and  white  population,  1829. 
f     White     population     as    constitu-" 
j  tional  basis.     Western   plan.     Cen- 
|  sus    according   to    Auditor's    state- 
[ment,  1829.  '. 

f     Average    of   white  basis,  mixed 
Mr.  Upshur's  plan...  \  ^sis  and  Federal  Numbers  as  a  con- 
J  stitutional  basis.    Apportionment  ac- 
[  cording  to  estimate  of  1829. 

{An  average  of   white  basis  and~| 
Federal  Numbers  as  a  constitutional  >-  47    79    126 
basis.     Census  of  1820.  j 

*  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  492  and  572. 

a  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  571.  Leigh  said  that  it  was  talked  of  outside 
the  Convention,  and  Doddridge  announced  that  he  individually  was  think- 
ing of  leaving  the  Convention,  since  the  Eastern  members  had  announced 
as  their  ultimatum  that  they  would  not  apportion  the  House  of  Delegates 
on  the  white  basis,  or  vote  for  any  measure  which  would  provide  for  the 
adoption  of  that  basis  at  some  future  time. 


49    77     126 


•   56    64    120 


•  48    72    120 


40  Representation  in  Virginia.  [294 

the  two  houses,  and  by  the  latter  a  majority  of  twenty-eight.1 
Of  the  two  the  West  preferred  Gordon's  plan,  which,  further 
modified  so  as  to  give  the  East  on  joint  ballot  a  majority  of 
twenty-seven,  was  finally  adopted  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  by  a  vote  of  49  to  43.2  This  plan  was  not  satisfactory 
to  the  Western  members,  as  it  provided  no  basis  for  future 
apportionments.  They  denounced  it  as  a  "  mere  shift  and  tem- 
porary expedient,"  declaring  that  the  adoption  of  no  constitu- 
tional basis  would  mean  another  convention  in  the  near  future, 
and  a  continuation  of  the  strife  between  the  two  sections.3 
Attempts  were  then  made  to  adopt  a  basis  for  future  apportion- 
ments. Many  plans  were  offered,4  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  finally  declared  for  an  average  of  the  white  basis  and 
Federal  Numbers.5 

On  the  18th  of  December,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
reported  Mr.  Gordon's  plan  to  the  Convention,  and  it  was 
passed  by  a  vote  of  50  to  46.6  The  measure  which  the  Com- 

1  Gordon's  original  plan  was  a  House  of  Delegates  of  120,  50  from  the 
West  and  70  from  the  East ;  and  a  Senate  of  24,  10  from  the  West  and  14 
from  the  East :  the  Senate  was  afterwards  changed  to  32 ;  13,  West,  and  19, 
East.    Upshur's  original  plan  was  a  House  of  Delegates  of  120;  48,  West, 
and  72,  East :  a  Senate  of  30 ;  13,  West,  and  17,  East.  He  afterwards  changed 
the  Senate  to  32 ;  14,  West,  and  18,  East.    Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  455, 
494,  559,  567,  570. 

2  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  574.     As  adopted  by  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  the  House  of  Delegates  was  to  be  127  :  29  from  the  Trans-Alleghany 
district,  24  from  the  Valley,  making  for  the  West  53 ;  40  from  the  Pied- 
mont and  34  from  Tidewater,  making  74  for  East.     The  Senate  was  to  be 
32;  13,  West,  19,  East. 

3  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  570,  571. 

4  Doddridge  proposed  after  every  census  to  reapportion  the  House  of 
Delegates  on  white  basis,  and  the  Senate  on  Federal  Numbers.     Another 
plan  was  to  submit  to  the  people  after  the  next  census  the  question  which 
basis  was  to  be  used  ;  another  to  take  the  vote  of  the  people  on  the  white 
basis,  when  the  new  constitution  would  be  submitted,  and  still  another  was 
to  adopt  the  white  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates  and  to  leave  the  Senate 
unchanged.    Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  570,  574,  575. 

5  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  574,  575.     Mr.  Upshur's  proposal ;  but  origin- 
ally suggested  by  Marshall. 

6  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  668. 


295]        The  Fight  aver  Representation  in  1829-30.  41 

mittee  of  the  "Whole  reported,  making  the  basis  for  future 
apportionments  an  average  between  the  white  basis  and 
Federal  Numbers,  was  so  thoroughly  distasteful  to  the  Western 
members,  and  they  asserted  with  so  much  vehemence  that 
they  would  not  submit  to  it,  that  the  members  from  the  East 
were  afraid  to  push  it,  and  it  was  defeated.1  Repeated 
attempts  were  still  made  to  adopt  some  basis.  All  argued 
that  the  matter  must  be  settled  for  good  and  all,  and  forever 
sunk,  or  else  a  division  of  the  State  would  follow;  yet  they 
would  not  agree.2 

A  select  committee  was  appointed  to  draft  a  constitution 
from  the  resolutions  that  had  been  passed.3  In  regard  to 
representation  they  reported  that  it  was  difficult  to  make  the 
apportionment  of  delegates  to  the  different  counties,  and  there 
was  complaint  of  injustice  done  to  some  counties.4  No  great 
difficulty  was  experienced  in  regard  to  the  Senate.  The  Con- 
vention struck  out  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  as  the 
number  for  the  House  of  Delegates,5  and  gave  the  power  to 
the  select  committee  to  apportion  representation,  provided  it 


llbid.,  p.  671. 

2  B.  W.  Leigh  presented  a  plan  for  a  House  of  Delegates  of  139,  56  from 
the  West  and  83  from  the  East.     The  East  was  to  have  no  more  new 
counties,  but  ten  could  be  formed  by  the  Legislature  in  the  West.    As 
population  increased,  representation  could  be  increased  provided  the  House 
never  exceeded  160.     This  meant  that  21  more  members  could  be  added  to 
the  House  of  Delegates.    Should  the  West  get  all,  the  East  would  still 
have  a  majority  of  6,  consequently  this  plan  was  not  satisfactory  to  the 
West.     Doddridge  offered  White  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates  and 
Federal  Numbers  for  the  Senate,  to  take  effect  after  1840 ;  another  proposal 
was  Federal  Numbers  for  the  House  and  white  basis  for  the  Senate  ;  another 
that  in  1840  and  every  ten  years  after,  a  census  of  the  qualified  voters  be 
taken  and  the  Legislature  make  an  apportionment  in  both  houses  on  this 
basis;  and  still  another,  that  the  Senate  be  a  fixed  body,  and  the  House  be 
based  on  the  qualified  voters.     (Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  675,  676,  680,  681, 
689,  690,  705,  749,  751,  765.) 

3  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  777.    The  committee  was  Madison,  Marshall, 
Doddridge,  Chapman  Johnson,  B.  W.  Leigh,  Tazewell  and  Cooke. 

4  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  798.  5  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  799. 


42  Representation  in  Virginia.  [296 

was  done  so  as  to  retain  the  relative  proportion  for  the  four 
districts  of  the  State.  The  House  of  Delegates,  however,  was 
not  to  exceed  one  hundred  and  fifty.1  The  committee  made 
the  House  of  Delegates  one  hundred  and  thirty-two  :  thirty 
from  the  Trans- Alleghany  district,  twenty-five  from  the  Val- 
ley; forty-one  from  the  Piedmont,  and  thirty-six  from  the 
Tidewater  section.2  The  Convention  changed  this  by  adding 
one  to  the  Trans- Alleghany  district,  and  one  to  the  Piedmont.3 
It  was  also  agreed  that,  in  1841  and  every  ten  years  after,  the 
Legislature  should  have  the  power  to  reapportion  representa- 
tion, provided  no  change  was  made  in  the  number  from  any 
district.4  There  was  a  strong  desire  to  adopt  some  plan  for 
a  reapportionment  of  the  whole  State  without  reference  to  the 
districts;  so  finally  a  resolution,  proposed  by  Mr.  Madison, 
was  carried  and  introduced  into  the  constitution,  that  the 
"  General  Assembly  after  the  year  1841  and  at  intervals 
thereafter  of  not  less  than  ten  years,  shall  have  authority, 
two-thirds  of  each  house  concurring,  to  make  reapportionments 
of  delegates  and  senators  throughout  the  commonwealth  so 
that  the  number  of  delegates  shall  not  at  any  time  exceed  one 


1  Ibid.,  p.  808.  2  Ibid.,  p.  820. 

3  Ibid.,  pp.  847,  848,  898.    The  clause  on  representation  in  the  constitu- 
tion thus  made  the  House  of  Delegates  134,  apportioned  as  follows: 
The  district  west  of  Alleghany 


(Trans-Alleghany) . 


The  district  between  Alleghany 
and  Blue  Ridge  (Valley) 

The  district  between  Blue  Ridge 
and  Tidewater  (Piedmont) 


The  Tidewater  section 36  delegatesj 


26  counties,  31  delegates 
14        "        25        " 

29        "        42        " 
36  counties  and  three 


West,  56. 


-  East,  78. 


The  Senate  of  30 :  West,  13 ;  East,  19.  This  gave  the  East  a  majority  of  28 
in  the  Legislature.  The  apportionment  was  on  the  census  of  1820,  according 
to  which  the  population  (white)  of  the  East  was  349,073,  and  of  the  West 
254,208.  An  apportionment  on  the  white  population  as  it  then  stood  (1830) 
would  have  given  the  West  62  and  the  East  72  in  the  House,  and  in  the 
Senate,  the  West  15  and  the  East  17 ;  an  Eastern  majority  of  only  12. 

4  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  828,  836. 


297]        The  Fight  over  Representation  in  1829-30.  43 

hundred  and  fifty,  nor  of  senators,  thirty-six." l  These 
amendments  were  not  satisfactory  to  the  Western  members  who 
claimed  that  it  would  be  impossible  ever  to  get  the  Legislature 
to  agree,  or  to  get  a  two-thirds  majority.2  When  the  final 
vote  was  taken  in  the  Convention  on  the  constitution  the 
Western  men  voted  against  it  because  of  the  failure  to  settle 
the  basis  question.3 

January  15,  1830,  the  Convention  adjourned  sine  die,  and 
at  the  April  elections  (1830)  the  new  constitution  was  submit- 
ted to  the  people  and  ratified  by  a  vote  of  26,055  to  15,563.4 
Of  the  forty  Western  counties,  only  eleven  gave  majorities  for 
the  constitution,  and  in  these  the  vote  was  close,5  while  all  the 
Eastern  counties  gave  majorities  for  the  constitution,  most  of 
them  very  large  majorities,  except  Warwick  and  Lancaster 
which  voted  for  rejection. 


1  Debates  of  Convention,  pp.  849,  854.  8  Ibid.,  p.  850. 

3  The  constitution  passed  the  Convention  by  the  vote  of  55  to  40.    Cooke 
was  the  only  Western  man  who  voted  for  it.    Doddridge  was  sick,  but 
would  have  voted  "  no."     Thirty-four  Western  men  voted  against  it,  one 
Tidewater  man,  Stanard,  and  five  from  the  Piedmont.     (Debates,  p.  882). 
The  white-basis  men  claimed  49  members  of  this  convention,  but  a  few 
were  unwilling  to  pass  their  basis  without  a  decided  majority,  hence  the 
white  basis  was  not  adopted.     (Debates,  p.  694).     The  West  had  only  36 ;  the 
others  were  from  the  Piedmont.     At  one  time  there  was  a  white-basis  man 
from  Tidewater,  Robert  B.  Taylor  of  Norfolk,  but  his  constituents  forced 
him  to  resign.     (Debates,  pp.  234,  235).    The  West  remembered  his  stand, 
and  in  the  next  Legislature  with  some  Eastern  members  elected  him  a 
circuit  judge  for  the  Norfolk  district  in  spite  of  opposition  to  him  from 
that  circuit. 

4  Debates  of  Convention,  p.  903.     (Official  poll  of  each  county. )     The  vote 
of  the  West  was  13,282  for  rejecting  and  5,985  for  ratification ;  of  the 
East,  2,281  for  rejecting  and  20,070  for  ratifying.    The  vote  for  ratification 
in  the  West  would  not  have  been  so  large  but  for  the  clause  extending  suf- 
frage.    The  vote  shows  the  difference  in  the  sentiment  of  the  two  sections. 

8  These  eleven  counties  were  Alleghany,  Augusta,  Botetourt,  Frederick, 
Hampshire,  Jefferson,  Lee,  Rockbridge,  Rockingham,  Shenandoah  and 
Washington;  all  Valley  counties  except  Lee  and  Washington.  These 
counties  were  all  large  and  would  gain  by  the  new  system  of  representa- 
tion. 


44  Representation  in  Virginia.  [298 

The  new  constitution,  though  in  many  respects  a  failure, 
made  improvements  in  representation.  It  reduced  the  House 
of  Delegates  from  214  to  134,  and  thus  cut  down  the  expenses 
of  the  government.  Glaring  inequalities  of  representation 
were  removed,  such,  for  instance,  as  two  delegates  from  War- 
wick, while  Loudoun,  with  twenty-two  times  as  large  a  white 
population,  had  only  two  delegates.  In  fact,  throughout  the 
State  the  counties  had  representation  apportioned  more  nearly 
in  accord  with  their  respective  populations.  With  reference 
to  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  State,  the  apportionment 
was  better.  The  West,  under  the  old  constitution,  had  about 
33  per  cent,  of  the  members  of  the  Legislature.  It  was  now 
given  41  per  cent.  Had  the  apportionment  been  made  on  the 
white  population  as  it  then  stood,  the  West  would  have  received 
about  46  per  cent.,  hence  that  section  never  became  reconciled 
to  the  new  constitution.  No  reapportionment  could  be  made 
before  1841,  and  not  even  then  could  the  numbers  from  the 
different  sections  be  disturbed,  unless  two-thirds  of  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  concurred ;  and,  since  a  large  majority  of  the 
Legislature  were  Eastern  members,  the  chances  of  are  appor- 
tionment were  meagre.  The  great  misfortune  was  that  the 
Convention  could  not  agree  upon  some  constitutional  basis, 
and  it  is  a  noteworthy  fact  that  but  for  slave  property  a  basis 
of  representation  would  probably  have  been  embodied  in  the 
constitution. 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  STEPS  TO  THE  CONVENTION  OF  1850-51. 

The  adoption  of  the  new  constitution  by  no  means  settled 
the  basis  question.  The  reapportionment  was  far  more  equit- 
able than  the  previous  county  system,  and  for  that  reason  the 
West  was  quieted  for  a  while.  The  accusation  was  still 
brought,  however,  that  the  power  was  too  thoroughly  centered 
in  the  wealthy  classes  of  the  East,  and  the  advocates  of  inter- 
nal improvements  saw  that  no  great  scheme  could  be  carried 
through,  while  much  money  would  be  wasted  by  the  iniquitous 
"log-rolling"  system.  Internal  improvements  became  the 
principle  of  division  between  the  sections.  Western  Virginia 
was  undeveloped,  and  the  wealth  of  that  section  was  too  small 
for  extensive  works  to  be  executed  by  private  enterprise,  so 
the  fight  in  the  Legislature  was  for  State  appropriations  to 
assist  in  the  work.1  All  the  power  being  in  the  hands  of  the 
East,  these  appropriations  were  hard  to  get,  hence  the  West 
felt  bitterly  the  apportionment  of  representation.  Eastern 
Virginia  was  in  a  state  of  premature  decay,  and  the  West 
claimed  that  this  condition  was  due  to  the  commercial  non- 
intercourse  of  the  two  sections.2  An  effort  was  made  to 


1  Enquirer,  Jan.  27,  1831. 

2  Enquirer,  Feb.  8,  12,  March  15,  Dec.  28,  1831;  Jan.  5,  7,  10,  31,  Feb.  4, 
1832.    The  intercourse  was  so  poor  that  in  going  from  the  eastern  to  the 
western  portion  of  the  State  one  was  often  compelled  to  go  through  Mary- 
land and  Pennsylvania.     Western  Virginia  trade  went  to  Baltimore.    In 
1831  an  internal  improvement  convention  was  held  at  Lewisburg,  which 
emphasized  the  decline  of  Eastern  Virginia  and  the  necessity  for  closer 
connection  between  the  sections.    A  scheme  was  proposed  to  have  a  canal 

45 


46  Representation  in  Virginia.  [300 

establish  a  commercial  route  between  the  sections,  but  the 
Eastern  majority  in  the  Legislature  strenuously  opposed  large 
appropriations ;  so  the  scheme  finally  came  to  naught.1  The 
question  was  one  of  great  importance,  and  The  Enquirer,  the 
leading  paper  of  the  State,  declared  in  favor  of  giving  the 
West  an  Eastern  market,  instead  of  letting  the  trade  go  to 
Baltimore.2  The  situation  was  grasped  by  some  Eastern  Vir- 
ginians, who  saw  that  either  Norfolk  or  Baltimore  had  to  be  the 
emporium  for  Western  trade,  and  that  without  a  liberal  policy 
on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly  it  was  sure  to  be  Balti- 
more.3 The  politicians  of  Eastern  Virginia,  however,  took 
too  much  of  a  local  view  of  the  matter,  so  that  great  schemes 
of  internal  improvements  were  appealed  for  in  vain.  Every 
section  was  for  itself,  and  the  interest  of  the  State,  as  a  whole, 
was  overlooked.  In  vain  did  the  people  of  the  West  try  to 


from  Richmond  to  Lynchburg,  and  a  railroad  from  there  to  the  Ohio 
Biver.  (See  memorial  in  Jour.  H.  of  Del.,  1831-32,  Doc.  No.  8.)  The 
Western  people  persisted  in  efforts  for  these  improvements,  and  said  that  the 
"mongrel  principle"  of  representation  prevented  them  from  accomplish- 
ing their  purposes,  and  that  they  hoped  the  East  would  show  a  spirit  of 
liberality.  (Enquirer,  Jan.  31,  1832.) 

lJour.  of  H.  of  Del.  (1831-32),  p.  131.  The  matter  was  before  the 
Assembly  frequently,  and  they  acted  favorably  on  it,  but  never  pushed  it 
with  energy. 

2  Editorial  in  Enquirer,  June  1,  1832. 

3  Enquirer,  June  8,  1832.     It  seems  plain  to  us  that  an  effective  commer- 
cial route  connecting  the  East  and  West  would  have  been  the  making  of 
Norfolk  and  Richmond,  but  sixty  years  ago  Eastern  Virginians  failed  to  see 
it.    On  the  other  hand,  they  argued  that  it  would  be  to  their  interest  to 
keep  out  Western  products,  as  the  prices  of  their  products  would  be 
reduced.     (Enquirer,  May  17,  1833.)     The  truth  is:  Eastern  Virginia  was, 
at  the  time,  essentially  an  agricultural  section,  and  a  man's  highest  ambi- 
tion was  to  be  a  large  slave-holding  planter.     The  profits  to  the  State,  as  a 
whole,  to  be  gained  by  making  the  towns  centres  of  trade  and  industries, 
were  seen  by  few  in  the  East,  and  the  result  was  that  few  efforts  were 
made  to  advance  the  interests  of  the  cities.     In  1833  a  traveller  in  the 
Valley  might  see  long  trains  of  wagons  winding  their  way  to  Baltimore 
instead  of  to  Richmond.     (Enquirer,  May  17,  1833.) 


301]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention  of  1850-51.  47 

enlist  the  East  in  their  schemes  of  improvements,1  but  they 
could  succeed  in  getting  only  small  appropriations  by  means 
of  the  so-called  "  log-rolling." 2  The  importance  of  the  subject 
of  internal  improvements 3  in  connection  with  representation 
is  this :  The  Western  people  finding  that  their  desires  for 
internal  improvements  were  not  going  to  be  granted,  began 
within  ten  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  new  constitution  to 
agitate  the  basis  question  once  more.  They  wished  to  have 
representation  based  on  white  population  so  that  they  might 
have  the  power  to  execute  their  own  measures  in  spite  of  the 
opposition  of  the  East. 

During  the  period  from  1830  to  1850,  there  was  strong 
feeling  of  jealousy  between  the  sections  of  the  State,  and  much 
talk  of  separation  on  the  part  of  the  West.4  Yet  there  is  no 


xThe  papers  of  the  West,  The  Kanawha  Banner  and  The  Welkburg 
Republican,  entreated,  even  demanded,  a  liberal  and  enlarged  system  of 
internal  improvements.  Meetings  were  held  in  many  places  to  arouse 
interest  in  the  proposed  commercial  route.  (Enquirer,  Sept.  13,  Oct.  18, 
25,  1833,  and  Sept.  9,  1834.) 

2 The  principle  of  "log-rolling"  was  that  sections  having  pet  schemes 
would  unite  and  pledge  themselves  to  vote  for  each  other's  schemes,  and 
thus  get  a  majority.  Piedmont  was  very  anxious  for  internal  improve- 
ments, and  would  often  combine  with  the  West,  promising  some  petty 
appropriations  for  its  support.  Tidewater  always  resisted  these  measures. 

3  The  question  of  internal  improvements  was  one  of  some  importance 
several  years  before  the  Convention  of  1829-30,  but  it  was  not  till  1831 
that    the    matter    began  to    attract    so    much   attention,  which  it  con- 
tinued to  do  for  a  quarter,  of  a  century.    Conventions  after  conventions 
were  held  on  the  subject.     An  examination  &f  Enquirer  from  1830  to  1850, 
the  Reports  of  the  Board  of  Public  Works,  the  Journals  and  Documents  of  the 
House  of  Delegates  and  the  Governors'  Messages,  shows  how  much  the  matter 
was  agitated  in  Virginia. 

4  Lewis :  Hist,  of  West  Virginia,  pp.  323-325.     He  tells  us  that  separation 
was  agitated  principally  by  the  politicians  west  of  the  Alleghany ;   (1) 
because  so  much  money  was  appropriated  for  internal  improvements  in  the 
East,  while  a  Western  delegate  had  to  be  satisfied  with  a  few  hundred 
dollars  for  a  mud  turnpike ;  (2)  because  all  the  public  buildings  were  in  the 
East  except  the  Insane  Asylum  at  Staunton ;  (3)  because  from  1776  to  1850 
the  West  had  been  politically  ostracized.    The  West  had  in  this  period 
only  two  United  States  Senators,  Moore  and  Penny  backer  (Lewis  says  one, 


48  Representation  in  Virginia.  [302 

doubt  that  a  majority  of  the  Western  people  remained  firm  in 
their  allegiance  to  their  mother  State.  They  turned  their 
eyes,  however,  to  another  constitutional  convention  to  redress 
their  grievances.  Equal  political  rights,  equal  representation 
on  the  white  basis,  became  their  cry. 

The  Legislature  of  1839-40  had  the  subject  of  representation 
brought  before  it.  Two  fruitless  attempts  were  made  to  take 
some  action  on  the  matter ;  one  for  a  constitutional  convention,1 
the  other  for  reapportionment  of  representation  by  the  Legis- 
lature.2 The  session  of  1841—42  was  also  petitioned  by  many 
counties  to  reapportion  representation  throughout  the  State,3 
and  a  special  committee  was  appointed  to  consider  the  matter.4 
It  reported  for  a  reapportionment  on  the  suffrage  basis  (i.  e., 
on  the  qualified  voters  of  the  State).5  A  minority  report  made 


Moore ;  for  election  of  Pennybacker,  see  Jour.  H.  of  Del.,  1845-46,  p.  20), 
and  both  from  the  Valley.  Only  one  man  was  governor  from  the  section 
west  of  the  Alleghany.  This  was  Joseph  Johnson  who  was  not  governor 
till  1850.  The  Enquirer  in  1845  had  begged  the  Legislature  to  recognize 
the  West,  and  elect  a  governor  from  that  section.  (Enquirer,  Nov.  2, 1845.) 

1  Enquirer,  Feb.  23,  1841. 

2  Enquirer,  Feb.  26,  1841.     The  West,  according  to  the  census  of  1840, 
had  a  white  population  of  371,570,  and  the  East,  369,398 ;  so  that  in  a 
House  of  Delegates  of  134,  the  West  on  this  basis  would  have  been  entitled 
to  67  instead  of  56,  and  in  the  Senate  of  32  to  16  instead  of  13. 

3  Enquirer,  Jan.  6,  18,  22,  March  1, 1842.    Sixteen  petitions.    Some  were 
bitter,  declaring  that,  as  representation  stood,  the  Western  people  were  but 
slaves  of  the  East.     (See  Lewis  County  Resolutions:  Enquirer,  March  1, 
1842.) 

4  Enquirer,  Jan.  6,  1842. 

B  The  tenor  of  the  report  was  that  the  West  in  1840  had  a  small  majority 
of  the  white  population ;  that,  since  every  voter  had  the  same  right  at  the 
polls,  every  voter  should  be  equally  represented.  Representation  as  it  then 
stood,  gave  the  East  (with  a  voting  population  of  about  44,032)  78  delegates, 
and  the  West  (with  a  voting  population  of  42,016)  only  56  delegates.  Each 
Eastern  delegate  represented  564  voters,  at  which  ratio  the  West  should 
have  had  74  instead  of  56  delegates ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  56  delegates 
from  the  West  at  the  ratio  of  564  voters  for  each  delegate,  represented  only 
31,584  voters  of  the  42,016,  thus  leaving  about  one-fourth  of  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  West  unrepresented.  (See  Report  of  Committee:  Enquirer, 
Jan.  27,  1842.) 


303]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention  of  1850-51.  49 

by  the  Eastern  members  of  the  committee  advocated  the  mixed 
basis ;  and,  since  the  apportionment,  as  it  then  stood,  was  practi- 
cally on  that  basis,  no  change  at  all  was  thought  desirable.1 
Thus  the  old  fight  was  once  more  to  be  waged,  and  it  was 
still  to  be  a  contest  between  the  sections.  The  West,  having  a 
slightly  larger  white  population  than  the  East,  contended  for 
the  larger  "representation.  The  East,  paying  twice  as  large  a 
per  capita  tax,  claimed  the  larger  representation.  In  spite  of 
the  efforts  made  by  the  Western  members  of  the  House  of 
Delegates,  the  matter  was  postponed  indefinitely.2 

This  aroused  the  West.  In  the  summer  of  1842,  the  strug- 
gle over  representation  was  continued  with  renewed  energy. 
The  Western  newspapers  advised  the  people  to  throw  aside  all 
party  affiliations  and,  whether  Democrat  or  Whig,  to  concen- 
trate their  forces  for  Western  rights.  Feeling  ran  so  high 
that  separation  was  feared.3 

The  people  of  Kanawha  County  held  a  public  meeting  to 
discuss  representation.  A  committee  of  correspondence,  con- 
sisting of  ten  men,  was  appointed  to  issue  an  address.4  This 
address  stated  that  great  wrongs  were  being  perpetrated  on 
the  West,  and  that  there  was  no  hope  of  the  Legislature  doing 


1The  minority  report  claimed  that  "persons  and  property  are  alike  sub- 
jects of  legislation  and  entitled  to  like  protection."  The  East  paid  more 
taxes  than  the  West,  and  should  have  more  representation.  Taxation  per 
capita  in  1841  was  for  Tidewater,  $1.2125  ;  for  Piedmont,  $1.1044;  for  the 
Valley,  $0.7171 ;  and  for  the  Trans-Alleghany,  $0.3910 :  i,  e.,  for  the  East, 
$1.1543,  and  for  the  West,  $0.5913.  (Minority  Keport:  Enquirer,  Jan. 
27,  1842.) 

•The  vote  for  postponement  was  68  to  56.  (Enquirer,  March  10,  1842.) 
The  Eastern  members  asserted  that  the  West  should  not  force  a  reapportion- 
ment  upon  them.  A  bill  to  call  a  constitutional  convention  was  brought  in, 
but  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  66  to  57.  The  Western  members  were  so 
enraged  that  fifty  of  them  placed  a  protest  on  the  Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.,  because 
of  the  refusal  to  consider  the  plan  for  reapportionment,  or  for  a  convention. 
The  protest  declared  that  there  was  a  fixed  determination  on  the  part  of 
the  East  to  ignore  the  West  and  not  to  equalize  representation  at  all. 
(Enquirer,  Feb.  17,  March  10,  29,  and  April  1,  1842.) 

3  Enquirer,  July  12,  1842.  4  Ibid. 

4 


50  Representation  in  Virginia.  [304 

justice.  The  people  of  Western  Virginia  were  asked  to  send 
delegates  to  a  convention  at  Lewisburg  to  consider  representa- 
tion.1 Accordingly,  a  convention  met  in  Lewisburg,  August 
1,  1842.  Twenty  counties  were  represented  by  some  fifty  or 
sixty  delegates.2  Resolutions  were  adopted  asking  the  Legis- 
lature to  pass  a  bill,  submitting  to  the  vote  of  the  people  the 
question  of  a  constitutional  convention  to  equalize  representa- 
tion on  the  white  basis.3 

At  the  next  three  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly,  efforts 
were  made  to  pass  a  bill  for  a  constitutional  convention,  but 
all  in  vain.4 

In  1845,  the  state  of  representation  was  warmly  discussed. 
The  Enquirer  came  out  in  forcible  terms  against  the  existing 
system  of  representation,  and  said  it  was  folly  for  the  East  to 
try  to  keep  the  system  unchanged,  since  it  engendered  discord, 
and  produced  such  a  strong  local  and  sectional  feeling.5  To 


2  The  counties  were  Harrison,  Monongalia,  Ohio,  Montgomery,  Cabell, 
Mercer,  Kanawha,  Logan,  Greenbrier,  Monroe,  Alleghany,  Fayette,  Ran- 
dolph,  Wood,    Wythe,    Mason,    Jackson,    Page,    Augusta    and   Wayne. 
(Enquire)-,  Aug.  18,  1842.) 

3  Enquirer,  Aug.  19,  1842. 

4  At  the  session  of  1842-43  the  proceedings  of  the  Lewisburg  Convention 
were  presented,  and  petitions  from  Scott,  Harrison,  Monongalia,  Randolph, 
Marion,  Lewis  and  Greenbrier  counties,  asking  for  a  convention.    Western 
members  worked  hard,  but  the  convention  bill  was  defeated  in  the  House 
of  Delegates  by  a  vote  of  66  to  55  (a  sectional  vote).     (Enquirer,  Dec.  13, 
15,  1842;  Jan.  14,  Feb.  2,  March  4,  9,  1843.)     At  the  session  of  1844-45 
petitions  for  a  convention  were  presented  from  Hampshire,  Lee,  Isle  of 
Wight,  Fairfax  and  Monongalia.    A  special  committee  was  appointed  to 
consider  them.    It  reported  in  favor  of  a  bill  to  submit  the  question  to  the 
people,  but  the  matter  was  indefinitely  postponed  in  the  House  of  Delegates 
by  a  vote  of  64  to  63.     (Jour,  of  H.  of  Dd.  (1844-45),  pp.  17,  18,  23,  53,  86, 
25,  27,  44  and  106 :  also  Bill  No.  23,  appended  to  Journal.) 

6  Editorial  in  Enquirer,  July  22,  1845.  This  pointed  out  that  the  Con- 
stitution of  1829-30  created,  instead  of  reducing,  a  stronger  sectional  feel- 
ing, in  that  it  divided  the  State  into  four  divisions  on  the  supposition  that 
they  had  conflicting  interests.  Thus  there  were,  so  to  speak,  separate 
states  confederated  together  in  one,  and  each  section  was  made  to  believe, 


305]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention  of  1850-51.  51 

show  the  condition  of  the  State  in  1845, 1  quote  the  following : 
"  The  section  below  Tidewater  which  was  once  populous  is  in 
many  places  almost  deserted.  The  property  and  the  wealth 
are  shifting  to  other  divisions.  The  section  beyond  the  Alle- 
ghany,  once  the  resort  of  the  wolf  and  the  bear,  is  fast  filling 
up  with  an  industrious,  high-souled,  thriving  population  whose 
wealth  is  rapidly  accumulating  and  whose  immense  resources 
are  being  daily  more  and  more  developed,  and  yet  the  same  ratio 
is  to  be  preserved.  The  people  of  the  East  may  rely  upon 
it,  this  state  of  things  cannot  last,  this  injustice  will  not  be  sub- 
mitted to."  x  These  utterances  are  very  significant  considering 
that  they  are  from  an  editorial  in  an  Eastern  newspaper. 

Memorials  were  now  circulated  in  the  State,  some  for  and 
some  against  a  convention.  County  meetings  were  held  in 
regard  to  the  basis  question.2  One  section  was  arrayed  against 
the  other.  The  West  was  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  white 
basis.  From  the  newspaper  discussions  we  are  able  to  get  the 
following  in  regard  to  the  East :  (1).  A  majority  was  opposed 
to  a  constitutional  convention  to  settle  the  basis  question.3 

unless  an  improvement  was  brought  within  it,  it  was  being  taxed  for  the 
benefit  of  the  others  entirely.  The  same  editorial  spoke  of  the  absurd- 
ness  of  an  apportionment,  by  which  it  mattered  not  how  much  the  popula- 
tion or  wealth  of  a  section  might  change,  yet  representation  must  remain 
unchanged. 

1  Enquirer,  July  22, 1845. 

8  Enquirer,  July  29,  Aug.  1,  Nov.  25,  28, 1845.  The  Resolutions  of  Kana- 
wha  County  illustrate  well  the  Western  position.  They  stated  that  the 
system  of  representation  as  it  stood  was  an  injustice  to  the  West;  that  the 
white  basis  was  the  only  one  that  would  satisfy  that  section,  but  it  was  will- 
ing to  give  a  guarantee  to  the  East  that  slave  property  should  not  be 
overtaxed  by  the  "  adoption  of  a  uniform  system  of  ad  valorem  taxation." 
(Enquirer,  July  29,  1845.)  Amelia  County  resolutions  show  that  the  East 
distrusted  the  West,  and  was  opposed  to  a  convention;  (1)  because,  if  the 
West  had  control  of  legislation,  appropriations  for  internal  improvements 
would  be  too  large ;  and  (2)  because  the  East  with  six  times  as  many 
slaves  as  the  West,  could  not  afford  to  let  the  government  pass  from  its 
hands.  (Enquirer,  Aug.  1,  1845.) 

3  Enquirer,  Aug.  5, 1845.  Some  went  so  far  as  to  denounce  the  Western 
people  as  would-be  tyrants,  wishing  only  to  get  hold  of  the  pocket-book  of 
the  East. 


52  Representation  in  Virginia.  [306 

(2).  Quite  a  respectable  element  was  for  taking  the  sense  of 
the  people  on  a  convention ;  and,  since  the  East  held  the  Legis- 
lature, it  could  control  the  convention  and  adopt  its  own 
basis.1  (3).  Some  in  the  East  preferred  separation  from  the 
West  to  a  surrender  of  their  principles.2  (4).  Others  favored 
a  convention  with  the  express  understanding  that  the  mixed 
basis  was  to  be  adopted.3  (5).  A  few  Eastern  men  favored  a  con- 
vention to  adopt  the  white  basis  with  a  guarantee  that  slave 
property  should  not  be  overtaxed  by  the  insertion  in  the  con- 
stitution of  a  clause  for  ad  valorem  taxation  on  all  kinds  of 
property.4 

On  the  opening  of  the  General  Assembly  (1845-46),  Gover- 
nor McDowell  in  his  message  urged  that  the  convention 
question  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people.5  Some 
petitions  were  presented  asking  for  a  convention.6  A  bill  was 
reported  for  taking  the  vote  of  the  people,  but  it  also  provided 
that  should  the  people  decide  for  a  convention,  the  organization 
of  it  should  be  on  the  mixed  basis.7  This  was  an  Eastern 

1  Enquirer,  Sept.  2,  and  Oct.  30,  1845  (Fairfax  Resolutions.) 

2  Enquirer,  Sept.  2,  1845.    At  this  time  the  desire  for  a  division  of  the 
State  was  quite  strong  in  the  West.    (Resolutions  of  Greenbrier  County, 
Enq.,  Sept.  2,  1845.)     A  majority  of  the  Western  people,  however,  were 
opposed  to  a  division.     (Enq.,  Nov.  4,  1845.) 

3  Enquirer,  Oct.  4,  10,  1845,  and  (Resolutions  of  Brunswick),  Enquirer, 
Sept.  30,  1845. 

4  Enquirer,  Aug.  12,  22 ;  Sept.  26 ;  Oct.  10, 1845.    There  is  no  douht,  how- 
ever, that  a  majority  of  the  Eastern  people  opposed  a  convention.    They 
saw  that  the  chief  desire  was  to  change  the  basis  of  representation ;  and, 
although  they  favored  other  reforms,  they  preferred  to  endure  the  existing 
evils  in  order  to  keep  representation  unchanged.    Enquirer,  Nov.  7,  1845. 
and  (Cumberland  Resolutions)  Enquirer,  Nov.  18,  1845. 

5  The  Governor  said  that  the  people  were  the  actual  parties  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  that  the  Legislature  had  no  right  to  refuse  to  let  the  sovereigns 
hold  a  conference  on  a  convention.     He  wished  to  see  the  principal  question 
of  dispute,  the  basis  of  representation,  rearranged  in  an  amicable  and 
satisfactory  way,  so  that  the  political  divisions  as  they  then  stood  might  be 
forever  obliterated.    Jour,  of  H.  of  Del.  (1845-46),  pp.  14,  15. 

6  Journal,  pp.  18,  26,  28. 

''Journal,  20;  Bill  No.  132  (appended  to  Journal) :  Enquirer,  Dec.  5, 1845 ; 
Jan.  31,  1846. 


307]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention  of  1850-51.  53 

measure  to  get  control  of  the  proposed  convention.  The  West 
offered  a  substitute  to  have  the  convention  organized  on  the 
white  basis,  claiming  that  a  constitutional  convention  should 
be  controlled  by  a  majority  of  the  citizens  and  not  a  minority.1 
This  substitute  was  defeated  by  the  Eastern  members.2  The 
whole  matter  was  then  indefinitely  postponed.3  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  bill  would  have  passed,  had  the  West  been 
willing  to  accept  the  mixed  basis  for  the  organization  of  the 
convention.  But  a  majority  of  the  Western  delegates  was  in 
favor  of  a  convention  on  the  white  basis  or  none.  The  Eastern 
members  would  not  grant  this,  and  some  even  asserted  that 
rather  than  have  a  convention  on  the  white  basis,  they  would 
prefer  a  division  of  the  State.4 

The  discussion,  and  county  meetings  and  resolutions  of  1845, 
had  had  no  effect.  The  West  could  have  had  a  convention, 
but  refused  it  unless  on  the  white  basis.  Some  of  the  Western 
people,  however,  wanted  a  convention  on  any  basis,  and  criti- 
cised their  delegates  for  having  stood  so  firmly  for  the  white 
basis  only.  Yet  a  majority  in  the  West  did  not  care  for  a 
convention  without  their  plan  of  organization.6  A  change  now 
occurred,  and  the  East  took  a  firm  stand  for  a  convention,6 
but  to  be  organized  on  the  mixed  basis.  In  the  West  there  was 
a  want  of  harmony  :  some  favored  a  postponement  of  a  con- 


1 A  minority  report,  Document  No.  27  in  the  Appendix  to  Journal : 
Enquirer,  Jan.  31,  1846. 

2  Journal,  pp.  143,  144.    An  attempt  was  made  to  let  the  people  decide 
on  what  basis  the  convention  should  be  organized,  but  the  Eastern  members 
voted  this  down.     (Journal,  p.  124.) 

3  Journal,  pp.  144,  155 ;  Enquirer,  Feb.  20,  1846.    The  motion  for  post- 
ponement was  made  by  Mr.  Flowers  of  Harrison  County,  and  31  out  of  the 
56  Western  delegates  voted  for  it.    Another  attempt  was  made  for  a  conven- 
tion.    A  bill  to  submit  simply  the  question  of  a  "Convention"  or  "No 
Convention  "  was  introduced,  but  this  was  not  satisfactory  as  neither  the 
East  nor  the  West  was  willing  to  pass  a  bill  which  did  not  provide  the 
basis  of  organization  for  the  convention. 

4  Enquirer,  Feb.  20,  1846.  b  Enquirer,  Feb.  27,  March  6,  1846. 
6  Enquirer,  March  16,  31 ;  May  12,  1846. 


54  Representation  in  Virginia.  [308 

stitutional  convention  till  after  the  census  of  1850,  which 
would  show  more  plainly  the  great  inequality  in  representation  ; 
others  rather  than  have  no  convention  were  for  the  legislative 
basis  (i.  e.,  delegates  apportioned  for  the  convention  just  as 
they  were  in  the  House  of  Delegates) ;  others  for  white  basis 
only  as  the  plan  of  organization ;  while  others  were  for  any 
basis  of  organization,  provided  they  got  the  convention  for 
reforms.1  Once  more  counties  began  to  hold  meetings  on  the 
question  of  representation  and  a  constitutional  convention. 
The  spirit  displayed  in  the  West  seemed  more  liberal  than 
ever,  and  some  of  the  western  counties  passed  resolutions  in 
favor  of  a  compromise  basis  for  a  constitutional  convention.2 

A  convention3  to  discuss  the  question  of  representation  met 
at  Staunton  in  December,  1846.  Some  sixty  delegates  were 
present,  representing  some  eighteen  or  twenty  counties.  Reso- 
lutions were  passed,  asserting  that  the  white  people  were  the 
only  parties. in  the  social  compact,  and  that  they  only  ought 
to  be  recognized  as  a  basis  for  apportioning  representation 
throughout  the  State.  The  resolutions  also  expressed  opposi- 
tion to  a  constitutional  convention  (unless  organized  on  the 
white  basis)  until  after  the  census  of  1850.4 


1  Enquirer,  Aug.  28,  1846. 

2Kesolutions  of  Ohio  County  (Enq.,  Aug.  28,  1846),  and  of  Marshall 
County  (Enq.,  Dec.  3,  1846).  The  Enquirer  (Sept.  1,  1846)  quotes  the 
Wheeling  Argus  as  advocating  a  compromise  basis  for  a  convention. 
This  paper  ( Argus)  proposed  Federal  Numbers.  The  parties  in  the  West, 
according  to  it  were :  (1)  Reformers,  for  white  basis  or  none ;  (2)  Divisionists, 
who  wanted  a  separate  State  ;  (3)  Reformers  (conservative),  for  a  convention 
on  any  basis  and  for  all  reforms  that  they  could  get ;  and  (4)  Federalists,  for 
Federal  Numbers  as  a  basis  for  a  constitutional  convention  and  the  same 
for  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  General  Assembly. 

3  A  convention  to  meet  at  Staunton  in  August  had  been  proposed  by 
Berkeley  County,  but  so  much  discussion  occurred  as  to  when  and  where  it 
should  meet,  and  so  many  different  propositions  were  made  in  newspapers, 
that  very  few  delegates  assembled  at  Staunton  in  August,  so  they  adjourned 
to  reassemble  in  December.     (Enquirer,  July  29;  Aug.  1,  11,  28,  1846.) 

4  Proceedings  of  Staunton  Convention :  Enquirer,  Dec.  15,  1846. 


309]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention  of  1850-51.  55 

At  the  next  three  sessions  of  the  Legislature,  bills  were 
introduced  to  call  a  constitutional  convention,  but  on  each 
occasion  they  were  rejected.1 

Eastern  Virginia  now  began  strongly  to  advocate  a  con- 
stitutional convention,  not  to  grant  the  demands  of  the  West 
on  representation,  but  to  institute  other  reforms.2  The  matter 
was  urged  by  the  press  in  all  parts  of  the  State.3  When  the 
Legislature  met  in  December,  1849,  the  Governor's  Message 
brought  to  its  attention  the  expediency  of  a  convention  for 


1  At  the  session  of  1846-47,  the  Governor  in  his  Message  advised  a  con- 
vention. (Enquirer,  Dec.  8,  1846.)  The  matter  was  considered  by  the 
House  of  Delegates.  There  was  great  division  among  the  Western  mem- 
bers. Some  favored  taking  the  sense  of  the  people  without  any  plan  of 
organization  for  the  convention,  while  others  were  for  postponing  the  ques- 
tion till  after  the  census  of  1850,  and  expressed  fear  that  the  East  would 
force  a  convention  upon  them  before  that  time.  (Enquirer,  Dec.  10,  15, 
1846 ;  Jan.  30,  1847.)  At  the  session  of  1847-48,  an  attempt  was  made  to 
reapportion  representation,  and  a  committee  was  appointed,  but  at  its 
request  was  discharged.  (Enquirer,  Jan.  21,  1848.)  At  this  session  the 
West  became  incensed  at  an  action  of  the  East.  The  constitution  provided 
that  the  number  of  delegates  from  the  different  sections  should  neither  be 
increased  nor  diminished  except  by  two-thirds  vote  of  the  Legislature. 
But  now  one  delegate  was  given  to  Alexandria,  which  had  just  been  given 
back  to  Virginia  by  the  Federal  Government.  This  increased  the  Eastern 
delegation  by  one,  making  the  House  of  Delegates  135.  Mr.  J.  M.  Stephen- 
son,  a  Western  delegate,  entered  a  protest,  declaring  the  whole  proceeding 
unconstitutional,  since  it  had  passed  by  a  vote  of  60  to  59,  and  not  a  two- 
thirds  vote.  The  West  considered  this  an  act  of  injustice.  (Enquirer, 
Dec.  21,  27, 1847 ;  Feb.  25, 1848.)  At  the  next  session  (1848-49),  Governor 
Smith  in  his  Message  advised  a  convention ;  a  committee  was  appointed, 
but  reported  that  it  was  inexpedient  to  call  a  convention  at  that  time,  so 
the  matter  was  dropped.  (Jour,  of  H.  of  Del,  1848-49,  pp.  29, 115, 117,  326.) 

'Eastern  reformers  were  for:  (1)  extension  of  suffrage  and  prevention 
of  double  voting,  (2)  reform  in  county  courts,  (3)  limitation  on  the  Legisla- 
ture in  regard  to  taxation,  (4)  reform  of  the  judicial  system,  (5)  abolition 
of  Executive  Council,  and  (6)  election  of  Governor  and  other  officers  by  the 
people.  (Resolutions  of  Powhatan  County;  Enquirer,  Jan.  22,  1850.) 

3  The  Charlottesville  Jeffersonian,  The  Lynchburg  Republican,  The  Peters- 
burg Republican,  The  Lynchburg  Virginian,  The  Danville  Register,  The  Staun- 
ton  Vindicator  and  The  Rockingham  Register  as  quoted  by  Enquirer,  Dec.  4, 
14,  21,  28,  1849. 


56  Representation  in  Virginia.  [310 

reform.1  The  House  of  Delegates  took  the  matter  up,  and 
appointed  a  committee  to  bring  in  a  bill.2  The  bill,  as 
reported,  was  to  submit  to  the  vote  of  the  people  two  questions : 
(1)  whether  there  should  be  a  constitutional  convention  or 
not,  and  (2)  whether  it  should  be  organized  on  the  white  or 
mixed  basis.3  The  Western  members  spoke  for  a  convention, 
but  said  that,  while  the  East  wanted  reform  in  the  judicial 
system,  etc.,  they  wanted  a  change  in  representation,  and 
would  not  be  satisfied  with  the  mixed  basis  for  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  convention,  but  were  willing  to  take  the  vote  of 
the  people  to  decide  what  basis  should  be  used.4  However, 
the  Eastern  members  moved  and  carried  a  substitute  adopting 
the  mixed  basis  for  the  convention.8  The  convention  bill,  thus 
amended,  passed  the  House  of  Delegates  by  a  vote  of  78  to  42, 6 
and  the  Senate  by  17  to  II.7  The  act  provided  that,  at  the 
April  elections  (1850),  the  vote  of  the  people  should  be  taken 
on  a  constitutional  convention,  and  that  the  returns  be  made 
to  the  Governor,  who,  on  or  before  the  third  Monday  in  June, 
should  proclaim  the  result.  If  a  majority  was  found  for  a 
convention,  on  the  fourth  Monday  in  August  an  election  was 
to  be  held  for  delegates.  The  total  number  of  delegates  was 
to  be  one  hundred  and  thirty-five.  The  act  then  enumerated 
the  districts  and  the  number  of  delegates  for  each.8  The  sup- 
posed white  population  in  1849  was  887,717,  and  the  Revenue 


Governor  Floyd's  Message,  Documents  of  H.  of  Del.  (1849-50):  Doc. 
No.  I,  p.  10. 

2  Enquirer,  Dec.  7,  1849.  3  Enquirer,  Feb.  26,  1850. 

4  Enquirer,  Dec.  7,  1849. 

3 Enquirer,  Feb.  12, 1850.  The  vote  was  65  to  57.  The  Western  mem- 
bers voted  unanimously  against  it. 

6Enquirer,  Feb.  19,  1850.  Most  of  the  votes  against  a  convention  were 
from  the  West,  but  some  twenty  voted  for  it,  as  they  preferred  a  convention 
on  the  mixed  basis  to  none  at  all. 

''Enquirer,  March  15,  1850.  The  11  votes  against  the  convention  were 
from  the  West. 

8Acts  of  Assembly  (1849-50),  p.  9,  et  seq. 


311]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention  of  1850-51.  57 

Tax  was  $472,516.31 ; 1  and,  since  the  apportionment  for  the 
convention  was  to  be  on  the  mixed  basis  (taxation  and  white 
population  combined)  every  $7000.24  elected  one  delegate,  and 
every  13,151  white  persons,  one  delegate.  This  meant  that 
in  the  convention  every  white  person  was  to  have  just  a  little 
more  than  half  as  much  weight  as  a  dollar  in  taxes.  The 
apportionment  was  for  Tidewater,  thirty-eight  delegates;  Pied- 
mont, thirty-eight ;  the  Valley,  twenty-four,  and  the  Trans- 
Alleghany  district,  thirty-five.  Had  the  apportionment  been 
on  the  white  basis,  Tidewater  would  have  had  twenty-nine ; 
Piedmont,  thirty-two ;  the  Valley,  twenty-five,  and  the  Trans- 
Alleghany  district  forty-nine.2  In  other  words,  the  conven- 
tion organized  on  the  mixed  basis  was  to  have  seventy-six 
delegates  from  the  East  and  fifty-nine  from  the  West,  an 
Eastern  majority  of  seventeen ;  but  on  the  white  basis,  the 
East  would  have  had  only  sixty-one,  and  the  West  seventy- 
four,  a  Western  majority  of  thirteen.  No  wonder  the  West 
fought  so  hard  for  the  white  basis  and  said  so  much  against 
the  East.3  On  the  other  hand,  is  it  strange  that  the  East, 


1  Doc.  No.  31,  Documents  of  H.  of  Del.,  1849-SO. 

Tidewater  district  had  a  white  population  (1849),  192,660,  and  paid  taxes 
(1849)  $163,977.25. 

Piedmont  district  had  a  white  population  (1849),  209,970,  and  paid  taxes 
(1849)  $155,512.07. 

Valley  district  had  a  white  population  (1849),  160,557,  and  paid  taxes 
(1849)  $77,512.36. 

Trans-Alleghany  district  had  a  white  population  (1849),  324,530,  and 
paid  taxes  (1849)  $75,454.63. 

2Cf.  Documents  Nos.  31  and  40;  Documents  of  H.  of  Dei.,  1849-50. 

3  Enquirer,  Feb.  22,  26;  March  1,  1850. 

Many  Western  members  of  the  General  Assembly  denounced  in  strong 
terms  the  action  of  the  Eastern  members  in  forcing  upon  them  a  conven- 
tion on  the  mixed  basis  simply  (as  they  thought)  to  protect  slaves.  They 
were  hurt  to  think  that  the  East  could  not  trust  them  for  fear  they  would 
be  plunderers  of  property.  A  bitter  feeling  existed,  and  fear  was  expressed 
that  the  Trans-Alleghany  section  would  not  submit  to  the  convention  plan 
at  all.  The  reforms  advocated  at  this  time  by  the  East  (i.  e.  extension  of 
suffrage,  election  of  Governor  and  county  officials  by  the  people,  etc.)  were 


58  Representation  in  Virginia.  [312 

paying  twice  as  large  a  tax  as  the  West,  and  conscientiously 
believing  that  property  should  be  an  element  in  representation, 
should  have  striven  for  the  mixed  basis  ? 

The  fight  over  the  convention  was  quite  vigorous  through- 
out the  State.  Many  in  the  West  were  endeavoring  to  defeat 
the  measure,1  while  the  East  hoped  to  have  the  convention  bill 
approved  by  the  people.2  When  the  elections  were  held  in 
April,  quite  a  good  majority  was  cast  in  favor  of  the  conven- 
tion.3 With  some  exceptions  the  counties  in  the  Trans-Alle- 
ghany  district  gave  large  majorities  against  the  convention,4 
but  the  whole  Valley  and  all  the  Eastern  counties  except  two 3 
were  in  favor  of  the  convention. 

for  the  most  part  what  had  been  championed  by  the  West  in  the  Conven- 
tion of  1829-30,  and  were  conceded  to  be  the  true  republican  principles. 
Bat  that  representation  should  be  based  on  the  white  population,  the  East 
as  yet  did  not  accept,  and  the  "West  believed  that  it  was  not  from  principle 
but  from  distrust. 

1  The  West  opposed  the  measure,  thinking  it  a  trick  on  the  part  of  the 
East  to  have  a  convention  before  the  census  of  1850,  and  also  that  the  mixed 
basis  of  organization  was  only  an  indication  of  what  the  East  would  put  in 
the  new  constitution.     (Enquirer,  March  5,  1850.)     The  West  wanted  the 
people  to  vote  on  the  basis  question,  and,  since  the  East  was  afraid  to  allow 
this,  it  talked  of  separation.     (Enquirer,  April  9,  1850.)     The  Trans-Alle- 
ghany  district  was  especially  opposed  to  a  convention  organized  on  the 
mixed  basis,  because  each  of  its  delegates  would  represent  9,292  whites, 
while  each  Tidewater  delegate  would  represent  only  5,070  whites.     (Doc. 
No.  40,  p.  9:  Documents  of  H.  of  Del,  1849-50.) 

2  The  people  of  the  East  were  urged  to  vote  for  a  convention,  since  there 
was  no  fear  that  the  West  would  control  it ;  that  then  was  the  chance  to 
get  the  mixed  basis  adopted  and  to  put  through  some  needed  reform. 
(Enq.,  April  18,  1850.)     There  was  also  a  desire  in  the  Valley  for  the 
convention.    The  population  and  wealth  of  the  Valley  was  such  that  either 
the  white  or  mixed  basis  gave  it  practically  the  same  representation,  hence 
this  portion  of  the  West,  though  preferring  the  white  basis,  voted  for  the 
convention.     (Enquirer,  April  19,  1850 :  Doc.  30,  Documents  of  H.  of  Del., 
1849-50.) 

3  Returns  (MS.) :  State  Papers  (1850).    Returns  are  wanting  for  9  coun- 
ties :  4  from  the  Trans- Alleghany,  3  from  the  Valley,  and  2  from  the  East. 

4  Returns  for  43  counties  west  of  the  Alleghany.    Twenty -nine  gave 
majorities  against  the  convention,  and  in  these  only  a  few  votes  were  cast 
for  the  convention. 

5  Warwick  and  Amelia  counties. 


313]          The  Steps  to  the  Convention,  of  1850-51.  59 

In  August  delegates  were  elected  to  the  convention.  The 
candidates  declared  through  the  papers,  and  on  the  stump, 
their  views  on  the  basis  question,  which  was  made  the  main 
issue  in  the  elections.1  In  the  East  only  one  man  came  out 
in  violent  opposition  to  the  mixed  basis.2  This  was  Henry 
A.  Wise  of  Accomac.  He  advocated  the  suffrage  basis  which 
the  West  had  advocated  in  the  Legislature  of  1841-42.  He 
wanted,  however,  a  constitutional  guarantee  to  prevent  exces- 
sive taxation.3  The  West  rejoiced  in  the  support  of  so  eminent 
a  man,  but  in  the  East  he  was  spoken  of  as  the  "  modern  Jack 
Cade." 4  Yet  Wise  was  so  popular  among  his  constituents, 
that,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  his  views  were  contrary  to  theirs, 
he  was  elected  a  member  of  the  convention.  He  was  the  only 
man  elected  in  the  East  in  opposition  to  the  mixed  basis.5 
Not  a  member  elected  from  the  West  favored  the  mixed  basis. 


1  The  Whig  (June  1,  18;  July  4,  9,  12,  16,  17,  19,  23,  26,  30,  31 ;  Aug.  6, 
9,  13,  20,  1850)  contains  announcements  from  candidates  advocating  the 
mixed  basis  and  letters  to  the  number  of  twenty-seven.  The  Whig  was  for 
the  mixed  basis  or  none.  For  the  white  basis  we  find  in  The  Whig  of  the 
above  dates  only  three  articles,  two  of  these  announcements  from  candidates. 

*See  his  Announcement:  Whig,  June  1, 1850.  3Ibid. 

4  Whig,  June  18,  July  19,  1850.  8  Whig,  Sept.  13,  Oct.  18,  1850. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
THE  REFORM  CONVENTION  OF  1850-51. 

The  Convention  met  in  Richmond  on  the  14th  of  October, 
1850.  Of  the  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  members,  six  had 
been  members  of  the  Convention  of  1829-30.1  John  Y.  Mason 
was  elected  President.2  It  was  decided  to  wait  for  the  census, 
so  the  Convention  adjourned  November  4, 1850,  and  reassem- 
bled January  6,  1851,  and  remained  in  a  continuous  session 
till  August  1, 1851.  This  Convention  is  usually  spoken  of  as 
the  "  Reform  Convention "  because  of  the  many  salutary 
reforms  accomplished.3  The  fight  was  chiefly  on  the  basis  of 
representation,  which  consumed  most  of  the  time  and  attention 
of  the  Convention.  Eight  committees  were  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  different  questions  of  interest.4  The  most  important 
was  the  "  Committee  on  the  Basis  and  Apportionment  of 
Representation,"  consisting  of  twenty-four  members.  George 
W.  Summers  of  Kanawha  was  Chairman.  This  Committee 
reported  February  6,  1851.5  It  was  unable  to  agree,  one  half 
holding  to  one  basis,  while  the  other  half  advocated  a  different 
basis.  Two  propositions  were,  therefore,  submitted  ;  one 

1  John  Y.  Mason,  William  O.  Goode,  J.  Boyer  Miller,  James  Saunders, 
William  Smith  and  Archibald  Stuart.     Cf.  Lists :  Proceedings  and  Debates 
of  Convention  (1829-30),  pp.  3,  4,  and  Journal  of  Convention  (1850-51),  pp. 
423,  424. 

2  Journal,  p.  5. 

3  Extension  of  suffrage,  Governor  to  be  elected  by  the  people,  abolition 
of  the  Executive  Council,  reform  of  the  judicial  system,  and  the  election  of 
county  officers  by  the  people. 

4  Journal,  pp.  58,  59.  s  Journal,  p.  107 :  Debates,  pp.  145,  146. 

60 


315]  The  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51.  61 

marked  "  A,"  that  advocated  by  the  Eastern  members  of 
the  Committee,  and  the  other  marked  "  B,"  the  Western 
proposition.1 

Proposition  "  A  "  was  a  House  of  Delegates  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  members  chosen  biennially,  and  a  Senate  of  fifty-one 
chosen  for  four  years.  Both  houses  were  to  be  apportioned 
on  the  mixed  basis,  and,  in  1862  and  every  ten  years  after,  a 
reapportionment  was  to  be  made  on  this  basis.2  Proposition 
"  B  "  was  a  House  of  Delegates  of  one  hundred  and  fifty-six, 
and  a  Senate  of  thirty-six.  The  qualified  voters  were  to  be 
the  basis  of  representation  (suffrage  basis).  The  apportion- 
ments reported  with  "  B  "  were  based  on  the  white  population 
which  was  to  continue  till  an  enumeration  of  the  voters  could 
be  made ;  but,  in  1855  and  every  ten  years  after,  an  enumeration 
of  the  qualified  voters  should  be  made,  and  the  following 
General  Assemblies  were  to  reapportion  on  this  basis.3 


1  See  the  Documents  of  Convention  for  both  propositions. 

3  One-seventy-fifth  part  of  the  whites  was  to  elect  one  delegate,  and  one 
seventy-fifth  part  of  the  taxes  raised  by  the  Legislature  (deducting  there- 
from all  taxes  on  licenses  and  law  processes)  to  elect  one.  The  Senate  was 
to  be  distributed  in  the  same  way.  The  amount  of  taxes  was  to  be  estimated 
by  an  average  of  the  ten  preceding  years.  The  House  of  Delegates  on  this 
basis  was:  The  West  for  a  white  population  of  494,763  would  have  41.42 
delegates,  and  for  $185,316.37  taxes,  26.09  delegates,  making  67.51 ;  i.  e.,  68, 
delegates.  The  East  for  a  white  population  of  401,104,  to  have  33.58  dele- 
gates, and  for  $347,348.09  taxes,  48.91  delegates,  making  82.49 ;  i.  e.,  82 
delegates.  (See  Proposition  "  A  "  in  Appendix  to  Journal.)  Thus  the  East 
had  a  majority  of  14  with  a  white  population  less  than  the  West  by  93,559. 
The  Senate  on  the  same  basis  was  to  be  23  from  the  West  and  28  from  the 
East.  This  plan  meant  that  every  70  cents  in  taxes  was  to  have  a  repre- 
sentation equal  to  one  white  person.  (Sheffey's  Speech,  p.  9  :  Debates.) 

3  Journal  (Documents  in  Appendix) :  Debates,  pp.  146-147. 

By  this  plan  every  delegate  was  to  represent  5,740  white  persons,  and 
every  senator,  24,870.  This  gave  the  West  85  delegates  and  the  East  71 ; 
the  West  19  senators  and  the  East  17.  (Documents.)  Now  the  mixed 
basis,  as  seen  in  the  note  above,  gave  the  East  in  the  House  of  Delegates  a 
majority  of  14,  while  the  white  basis  gave  the  West  a  majority  of  14 ;  hence 
it  is  at  once  plain  why  the  fight  between  the  sections  was  so  sharp. 


62  Representation  in  Virginia.  [316 

The  basis  question  was  taken  up  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and,  from  the  17th  of  February  to  the  16th  of  May, 
the  discussion  was  almost  exclusively  on  this  subject.1  The 
debate3  is  too  long  for  anything  like  a  full  synopsis,  so  only  a 
few  of  the  main  features  will  be  presented.  The  East  advo- 

Here  it  may  be  well  to  state  the  sources  for  this  Convention.  There  is  a 
Journal  in  two  volumes.  The  first  volume  contains  the  Journal  proper  and 
some  documents,  while  the  second  volume  contains  documents  only.  In  the 
Va.  State  Library  there  is  one  volume  of  the  Debates  of  this  Convention. 
This  contains  the  speeches  from  Jan.  6,  to  Feb.  24,  1851.  The  rest  of  the 
debates,  printed  in  the  so-called  "  Supplement "  which  was  sent  out  with  all 
the  newspapers,  I  have  been  unable  to  find. 

1  Every  effort  was  made  by  both  the  East  and  the  West  to  carry  their 
points.  Public  meetings  were  held  by  the  counties  throughout  the  State 
to  express  their  views  and  to  instruct  their  delegates  on  the  basis  question. 
No  less  than  37  meetings  were  held  while  the  Convention  was  in  session. 
These  were  reported  to  the  Convention  and  their  resolutions  printed  in  the 
papers.  These  were  often  bitter  and  opposed  to  any  compromise.  The 
Eastern  counties  contended  for  mixed  basis  or  none,  while  the  Western 
counties  were  for  the  white  or  suffrage  basis.  A  good  specimen  of  the 
Western  resolutions  is  those  of  Pocahontas  County,  which,  after  stating  that 
the  East  intended  to  force  the  mixed  basis  on  the  West,  passed  the  follow- 
ing :  "  Resolved,  That  defective  as  is  our  State  policy  in  many  other  re- 
spects, we  regard  the  basis  of  representation  as  paramount  to  all  others, 
and  we  will  accept  no  constitution  that  does  not  contain  the  white  popula- 
tion as  the  basis  of  representation  in  the  councils  of  the  State;  and  we 
hereby  pledge  ourselves  to  do  everything  in  our  power  to  defeat  the  adop- 
tion by  the  people  of  any  constitution  which  does  not  confer  equality  of 
political  right  upon  the  people  of  every  portion  of  the  State."  ^References 
for  this  note:  Journal,  pp.  107,  180,  192,  193,  185, 159,  233,  243,  244,  247, 
251,  264,  265,  270:  Debates,  pp.  57,  100,  307:  The  Whitj,  April  8;  May  13, 
30;  June  10,  13,  17,  20,  27;  July  1,  4,  15,  22,  25, 1851. 

zThe  debate  was  well  arranged.  To  quote  a  contemporary  account: 
"The  Battle  of  the  Basis  is  fought  with  as  much  science,  system  and 
leisure  as  the  campaigns  of  Marlborough.  The  speeches  are  elaborate ; 
they  contain  little  that  is  new,  or  calculated  to  retain  attention  of  men  who 
have  ridden  on  the  basis,  slept  on  the  basis,  dined  on  the  basis  for  six 
months  past ! "  (  Whig,  March  24, 1851.)  The  people  of  the  State  became 
tired  of  the  debate,  and  even  the  members  of  the  Convention  paid  little 
attention  after  they  had  made  their  speeches.  "  Those  who  have  discharged 
their  duty  to  their  constituents,  look  with  interest  to  the  historical  records 
of  the  forthcoming  '  Supplement,'  and  chew  peanuts  in  all  the  dignity  of 
perfected  renown."  (  Whig,  March  24, 1851.) 


317]  The  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51.  63 

cated  the  mixed  basis  on  the  following  grounds:1  (1).  One 
principle  of  government  is  protection  of  property,  and  this 
can  be  done  best  by  allowing  it  representation.2  (2).  The 
white  or  suffrage  basis  would  give  control  to  a  section  paying 
about  one-third  of  the  taxes,  which  would  be  unjust.3  (3). 
By  suffrage  or  white  basis  a  numerical  majority  would  rule, 
while  a  minority  having  a  majority  of  interests  and  wealth 
would  be  ignored.4  (4).  It  would  be  unsafe  to  trust  the  gov- 
ernment to  the  West  as  it  might  increase  the  State's  burdens 
for  internal  improvement.5  (5).  Western  Virginia  being  essen- 
tially a  non-slaveholding  section,  the  government  once  in  its 
hands  might  overtax  or  abolish  slavery.6  (6).  The  West 
traded  with  Baltimore ;  and,  if  it  once  controlled  the  govern- 
ment, appropriations  might  be  made  to  extend  the  railroad 
connection  between  Winchester  and  Baltimore  so  as  to  take  all 
the  trade  from  the  West  and  Southwest  out  of  the  State.7 


1  The  speeches  used  on  the  mixed  basis  are  those  of  Messrs.  Stanard, 
Barbour,  Perkins,  Beale,  and  Scott  of  Fauquier. 

8  Debates,  p.  284.  3  Debates,  p.  284. 

4Barbour's  Speech,  p.  7  (in  Debates). 

5  Ibid.,  p.  10.     The  West  offered  guarantees  to  be  embodied  in  the  con- 
stitution that  the  burdens  of  the  State  should  not  be  increased,  and  that 
slave  population  should  not  be  overtaxed.    The  East  considered  these  as 
nothing,  as,  the  power  once  in  the  hands  of  the  West,  another  constitu- 
tional convention  could  be  called  and  all  restrictions  removed.     (Barbour's 
Speech,  p.  11.) 

6  Barbour's  Speech,  p.  12.    There  was  a  feeling  in  the  West  for  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery.     In  1832,  when  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Virginia 
Legislature  to  provide  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  every  man  from  the 
West  voted  for  it.    The  Trans- Alleghany  district,  if  it  continued  to  increase 
in  population  as  it  had,  would  at  some  day  with  the  white  basis  have  full 
control  of  the  government,  and  this  the  East  argued  would  be  ruinous  to 
slave  property.     (Stanard's  Speech,  p.  16.)     The  Trans-Alleghany  district 
had,  according  to  the  census  of  1850,  only  24,436  slaves,  and  the  rest  of  the 
State,  450,155  slaves.    The  white  population  west  of  the  Alleghany  was 
331,586,  and  the  rest  of  the  State  567,  548.     Distrust  of  this  Trans-Alle- 
ghany section  seems  to  be  the  main  reason  why  the  East  stood  for  the 
mixed  basis  to  protect  property. 

7  Stanard's  Speech,  p.  20. 


64  Representation  in  Virginia.  [318 

The  West  argued  for  the  suffrage  or  white  basis,  and  had  a 
very  staunch  ally  in  Henry  A.  Wise,  who  evidently  had  con- 
siderable influence  from  the  fact  that,  although  he  favored  a 
Western  measure,  he  was  an  Eastern  man.1 

The  arguments2  for  the  suffrage  or  white  basis  were  some- 
what as  follows :  (1).  The  government  resides  in  the  people, 
and  the  laws  are  for  their  protection.  The  origin  of  the  social 
compact  was  for  personal  rights,  the  preservation  of  life  and 
liberty,  and  not  for  the  protection  of  individual  property,  as 
the  right  to  separate  or  individual  property  was  a  concession 
of  society.3  (2).  All  voters  in  the  eyes  of  the  government 
should  be  equal,  and,  therefore,  every  voter  should  have  an 
equal  representation  without  regard  to  property.4  (3).  The 
mixed  basis  meant  a  rule  of  the  minority  which  was  unrepub- 
lican.5  (4).  Slave  property  would  not  be  endangered  by  the 
suffrage  or  white  basis.  The  Valley  and  some  few  of  the 
Trans-Alleghany  counties  had  so  many  slaves,  that  they  with 
the  East  would  amply  protect  slavery.6  The  ad  valorem  system 

1  Wise  spoke  for  five  days.     The  Whig  said  his  speech  was  revolutionary 
in  doctrine  and  socialistic,  and  that  the  whole  burden  was  abuse  of  the  rich, 
the  aristocrats.     Yet  we  are  told  that  his  speech  produced  a  great  impres- 
sion, and,  though  Booth  was  playing  Hamlet  at  the  theatre,  Wise  drew  the 
crowd.    His  speech  was  spoken  of  as  undoubtedly  one  of  the  best  delivered. 
Whig,  May  2,  1851. 

2  For  these  we  have  consulted  the  speeches  of  Messrs.  Sheffey,  Willey, 
Lucas,  Carlile,  and  Smith  of  Greenbrier ;  also  as  much  of  Wise's  speech  as 
was  accessible.    George  W.  Summers  was  a  faithful  champion  of  the  West, 
but  we  have  not  been  able  to  find  his  speech. 

3Shefley's  Speech  (Appendix  to  Debates),  pp.  3-5.  Sheffey  thought  that 
the  best  plan  was  to  refer  the  whole  matter  to  the  vote  of  the  people ;  that 
they  were  the  sovereigns  and  ought  to  decide  what  principle  of  representa- 
tion they  wanted. 

4  Proposition  "  B  "  in  Documents.    The  suffrage  basis  was  the  Jeffersonian 
principle  of  representation,  and  was  in  accord  with  the  natural  rights  of 
man.    (Debates,  p.  468.) 

5  Sheffey's  Speech,  p.  6. 

6  Sheffey  (Speech,  p.  16)  said  that  the  average  portion  of  slave  property 
was  33  per  cent.    Fifteen  counties  West  had  nearly  this.    These  in  a  House 
of  Delegates  of  156,  on  the  suffrage  basis  would  have  22  delegates,  and  the 
East  70,  so  the  slave  portion  of  the  State  would  dominate. 


319]  The  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51.  65 

of  taxation  would  be  another  protection.  Whatever  oppressed 
the  majority  in  society  would  oppress  the  minority,  and  vice 
versa,  when  taxation  is  equal  on  all  classes.1  (5).  The  inter- 
nal improvements  would  be  benefited,  "log-rolling"  would 
be  broken  up,  and  the  great  schemes  would  be  carried  through 
at  no  greater  cost.2 

The  arguments  of  both  sides  were  repeated  over  and  over 
again,  each  member  feeling  that  it  was  his  duty  to  add  some- 
thing to  the  debate  for  the  cause  of  his  constituents. 

On  the  17th  of  February  (the  day  on  which  the  debate 
began),  Mr.  Scott  of  Fauquier  proposed  a  plan  as  a  substitute 
for  those  reported  by  the  Committee.  This  was  nothing  more 
than  "A'1  (the  mixed-basis  plan)  with  restrictions  on  repre- 
sentation from  towns,  as  was  the  case  in  South  Carolina.3  The 
debate  continued  on  this  till  about  the  first  of  April,  when 
some  Eastern  (mixed-basis)  men  expressed  a  desire  for  a  com- 
promise basis  rather  than  restrict  town  representation.4  It 
also  became  evident  to  some  that,  if  the  mixed  basis  was  forced 
upon  the  West,  it  would  result  in  a  division  of  the  State.5  So, 
on  the  21st  of  April,  John  Minor  Botts  proposed  a  compro- 
mise which  was  to  give  equal  representation  in  both  houses  of 
the  General  Assembly  to  each  of  the  great  sections.6  A  vote 
was  taken  on  propositions  "  B  "  (suffrage  basis)  and  "  C,"  and 
both  were  defeated.7  Botts  now  withdrew  his  amendment  to 


1  Sheffey's  Speech,  p.  8. 

2  Sheffey's  Speech,  p.  12.    It  was  further  argued  that  the  interests  of  the 
two  great  sections  of  the  State  were  not  so  different  that  one  section  should 
be  afraid  to  trust  the  other,  and  that,  unless  the  Western  people  were  treated 
as  Virginians,  and  not  as  plunderers  of  property  and  abolitionists,  a  division 
of  the  State  would  ensue.    (Debates,  pp.  355-57.) 

'See  Debates,  p.  254:  also  Documents,  "C."  *  Whig,  April  8,  1851. 

*  Whig,  April  15,  1851  (Botts's  Letter  to  his  Constituents). 

6  See  Botts's  Amendment  in  Documents,  and   Whig,  April  22,   1851. 
This  plan  was  first  suggested  by  Tazewell  Taylor  of  Norfolk.    (  Whig,  April 
8,  1851.) 

7  Journal,  Appendix,  p.  3.     Mixed-basis  men  voting  against  "  C "  were 
Messrs.  Chilton,  Bowden,  Saunders,  Botts  and  Randolph. 

5 


66  Representation  in  Virginia.  [320 

await  the  will  of  his  constituents  in  Richmond,  where  a  poll 
was  to  be  taken  on  the  basis  question.1  There  was  now  much 
confusion.2  No  plan  was  being  considered  except  proposition 
"A"  (mixed  basis).  The  East  had  the  power  to  adopt  this, 
but  did  not  do  so  for  fear  the  West  would  withdraw  from  the 
Convention.3  At  this  point,  May  8,  Mr.  Summers  proposed 
as  a  compromise  from  the  West  that  a  constitution  be  adopted 
and  submitted  to  the  people  without  any  basis,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  that  a  separate  poll  be  held  to  allow  the  people  to 
decide  between  the  suffrage  and  the  mixed  basis.  This  was 
rejected  by  the  Eastern  members.4 

On  the  9th  of  May  a  motion  was  made  to  strike  out  propo- 
sition "  A,"  but  failed  by  a  vote  of  58  to  62.6  It  seemed 
certain  that  the  mixed  basis  would  now  be  adopted ;  but  the 
West  became  so  aroused,  and  affairs  were  at  such  a  crisis  that, 
on  May  10,  when  the  Convention  met,  it  was  thought  advisa- 
ble to  adjourn  for  the  day.6  A  caucus  was  held  by  the  mixed 
basis  advocates,  and  they  invited  the  suffrage-basis  party  to  a 
conference.7  Compromise  propositions  were  then  submitted 
by  both  sides.8  A  comparison  of  the  plans  shows  that  the 


1  Whig,  May  2,  1851.  *  Ibid. 

3  The  Whig  (April  9,  1851,  Remarks  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Fauquier)  states  that 
a  month  before  this  the  Governor-elect,  Joseph  Johnson,  of  Harrison  County, 
and  other  members  from  his  section  had  threatened  to  leave  the  Conven- 
tion, and  to  advocate  a  division  of  the  State  unless  the  suffrage  or  white 
basis  was  adopted. 

4  Journal,  Appendix,  pp.  7,  8.  5  Ibid.,  pp.  9-10. 

6  Whig,  May  27,  1851 ;   Randolph's  Letter  to  his  Constituents  :   also 
Stanard's  Speech  (Debates),  p.  26. 

7  Ibid. 

8  Whig,  May  23,  1851 ;  and  Stanard's  Speech,  pp.  33-34.    The  East  subi- 
mitted  the  following  plans  of  compromise:  (1)  House  of  Delegates,  156; 
suffrage  basis :  Senate,  50 ;  taxation  alone  as  basis.     (2)  House  of  Delegates, 
150 ;  85  to  West  and  65  to  East :  Senate,  50,  based  on  taxation  only.    In 
1862  and  every  ten  years  after,  the  House  to  be  apportioned  on  suffrage 
basis,  and  Senate  on  taxation.    (3)  House  of  Delegates,  150,  on  mixed  basis; 
Senate,  50,  on  suffrage  basis :  Reapportionment  every  ten  years  on  the  same 
plan.    The  West  proposed:  (1)  House  of  Delegates  on  mixed  basis,  and 


321]  The  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51.  67 

East  proposed  no  plan  which  would  ultimately  provide  for 
the  adoption  of  the  suffrage  or  white  basis,  while  the  West 
was  unwilling  to  accept  anything  which  did  not  provide  for 
the  suffrage  basis  or  for  submitting  the  question  to  the  vote  of 
the  people.  The  result  of  the  conference,  therefore,  was  that 
each  side  rejected  the  plans  of  the  other.  The  Western  mem- 
bers in  their  caucus  then  passed  resolutions,  declaring  that  they 
would  not  accept  any  compromise  which  did  not  eventually 
provide  for  the  adoption  of  the  suffrage  basis  or  for  submitting 
the  question  to  the  vote  of  the  people.1 

On  the  12th  of  May  a  committee  of  eight  was  elected  to 
prepare  a  compromise  plan.2  On  the  15th  of  May  they3 
reported  a  plan  providing  for  a  House  of  Delegates  of  one 
hundred  and  fifty  members,— eighty-two  from  the  West  and 
sixty-eight  from  the  East,  and  a  Senate  of  fifty, — thirty  from 
the  East  and  twenty  from  the  West.  In  1865,  the  Legisla- 
ture should  reapportion  representation  in  both  houses,  and,  if 
unable  to  agree,  the  question  was  to  be  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple whether  apportionments  should  be  on  the  suffrage  or  mixed 
basis.  This  was  rejected  by  the  close  vote  of  55  to  54.4  On 
motion  of  Henry  A.  Wise,  proposition  "  A "  which  had 
remained  before  the  Convention  was  rejected.5  Botts's  amend- 

Senate  on  suffrage  basis,  but,  in  1862  and  every  ten  years  after,  both  houses 
to  be  reapportioned  on  suffrage  basis.  (2)  Same  as  the  first,  except  in  1862 
the  vote  of  the  people  should  decide  whether  the  mixed  or  suffrage  basis 
should  be  adopted.  (3)  House  of  Delegates,  156,  on  suffrage  basis :  Senate,  50, 
on  taxation  alone,  but  in  1862  both  houses  to  be  reapportioned  on  the  suf- 
frage basis.  (4)  Mixed  basis  for  both  houses  till  1862,  when  both  were  to 
be  reapportioned  on  the  suffrage  basis. 

1  Whig,  May  13,  23,  27,  1851. 

8  Seeing  that  the  Convention  was  in  danger  of  separation  on  the  basis 
question,  Mr.  Martin  of  Henry,  a  mixed-basis  man,  made  the  motion  for 
this  committee,  four  from  the  East,  and  four  from  the  West.  Messrs. 
Summers,  Martin  of  Henry,  Wingfield,  Lucas,  Finney,  Caperton,  Chilton 
and  Letcher  were  elected  bv  the  Convention  as  this  committee.  (Journal, 
pp.  206,  208,  216.) 

3  All  concurred  except  Finney.     ( Whig,  May  16,  1851.) 

4  Journal,  Appendix,  pp.  11,  12.  5  Journal,  Appendix,  p.  13. 


68  Representation  in  Virginia.  [322 

ment  was  now  brought  up  and  rejected.  Wise  and  Finney 
offered  plans,  but  both  were  defeated.  The  proceedings  became 
ridiculous,  proposition  after  proposition  being  proposed  and 
rejected.1  Mr.  Chilton  now  introduced  a  plan,  the  same  as 
the  report  of  the  committee  of  eight,  except,  should  the  Legis- 
lature in  1865  fail  to  reapportion  representation,  the  Governor 
should  submit  to  the  people  four  propositions  :  (1)  the  suffrage 
basis,  (2)  the  mixed  basis,  (3)  the  white  population  and  (4) 
taxation  only.  This  was  carried  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  by  a  vote  of  55  to  48.2  In  the  Convention  this  was 
amended  so  that,  should  the  Legislature  in  1865  fail  to  agree 
on  a  reapportionment,  each  House  should  propose  its  schemes 
of  representation,  and  transmit  them  to  the  Governor  who 
should  submit  them  to  the  vote  of  the  people.  If  the  Legis- 
lature neither  apportioned  representation  nor  proposed  the 
schemes,  then  the  Governor  should  submit  to  the  voters  the 
following:  (1)  The  suffrage  basis  for  both  Houses;  (2)  the 
mixed  basis  for  both  Houses ;  (3)  taxation  only  for  the  Senate 
and  the  suffrage  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates,  and  (4)  the 
mixed  basis  for  the  Senate  and  the  suffrage  basis  for  the  House 
of  Delegates.  In  case  none  of  these  propositions  received  a 
majority  of  the  votes  cast,  the  two  having  the  largest  number 
of  votes  were  to  be  again  submitted  to  the  people.3  As  thus 
adopted,  the  clause  on  representation  was  embodied  in  the 
constitution  with  one  change ;  namely,  the  House  of  Delegates 
was  increased  to  one  hundred  and  fifty-two,  giving  one  dele- 
gate more  to  each  of  the  two  sections.4  This  compromise 

1  Journal,  Appendix,  pp.  14-17. 

*  Journal,  Appendix,  pp.  18-22.  The  mixed-basis  men  who  voted  for  it 
were  Messrs.  Arthur,  Bowden,  Chilton,  Claiborne,  Martin  of  Henry,  Ran- 
dolph and  Wingfield.  ( Whig,  May  23,  1851.) 

8  Journal,  pp.  220-225. 

4  Journal,  p.  409 ;  Code  of  Va.  (1860),  pp.  39-43.  The  constitution  pro- 
vided that  the  General  Assembly  should  meet  biennially.  The  delegates 
were  to  be  elected  biennially,  but  the  senators  for  four  years,  half  every  two 
years.  Any  qualified  voter  except  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  or  an  officer  of 
a  banking  corporation,  or  an  attorney  for  the  commonwealth,  could  be  a 


323]  The  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51.  69 

gave  the  West  eighty-three  delegates  and  the  East  sixty-nine. 
The  apportionment  for  the  House  was  on  the  suffrage  or 
white  basis,  according  to  the  census  of  1850.  The  Senate, 
thirty  from  the  East  and  twenty  from  the  West,  was  based 
on  an  arbitrary  apportionment,  giving  a  majority  to  the  East 
less  than  on  taxation  alone,  but  twice  as  large  as  on  the  mixed 
basis. 

The  people  of  the  East  expressed  strong  disapproval  of  this 
compromise.  They  urged  a  division  of  the  State  rather  than 
submit  to  it.1  Every  influence  was  brought  to  bear  on  the 

member  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  or  of  the  Senate  provided  he  was  25 
years  old. 

Suffrage  was  extended  to  all  persons  (male  whites)  over  21  years  of  age. 
The  Governor  was  to  be  elected  for  four  years  by  the  vote  of  the  people. 

1  About  14  Eastern  counties  passed  resolutions  in  opposition  to  this  com- 
promise, contending  that  the  East  should  hold  fast  to  the  mixed  basis  and 
not  yield  anything  to  the  West.  Some  counties  urged  their  delegates  to 
vote  for  a  sine  die  adjournment  of  the  Convention  so  as  to  keep  the  Consti- 
tution of  1830  in  force,  and  some  declared  for  a  division  of  the  State  rather 
than  accept  a  compromise.  ( Whig,  May  30;  June  5, 17,  24,  27 ;  July  1,  4, 
22,  1851.)  Kockingham  County,  for  instance,  said  that  a  division  would  be 
the  "  best  solution  of  existing  difficulties,  and  the  most  soothing  compromise 
of  conflicting  and  otherwise  irreconcilable  interests."  Letters  in  the  news- 
papers also  show  the  Eastern  opposition  to  the  compromise.  According  to 
these  the  white  basis  had  been  really  established,  and  slave  owners  would  no 
longer  be  recognized  in  the  government,  and  their  property  would  be  op- 
pressed. ( Whig,  May  30,  1851.)  Those  Eastern  Virginians  who  had  voted 
for  the  compromise  were  branded  as  "base  Judeans"  and  "vile  traitors." 
( Whig,  May  30,  June  17,  27.)  It  was  thought  advisable  to  organize  the 
two  sections  into  two  states,  since  the  difference  in  the  character  and  inter- 
ests of  the  people  was  so  great.  The  West  would  be  an  abolition  state  and 
would  harbor  fugitive  slaves,  but  this  would  be  better  than  Western  domina- 
tion. This,  of  course,  was  not  the  feeling  of  the  majority  of  the  Eastern 
people,  but  some  of  the  older  inhabitants  have  informed  me  that  the  senti- 
ments expressed  in  these  letters  were  prevalent  in  the  East.  The  mere  fact 
that  Littleton  W.  Tazewell  ( Whig,  July  1)  should  have  advocated  a  di- 
vision, and  that  resolutions  passed  by  four  Eastern  counties,  Southampton, 
Buckingham,  King  and  Queen,  and  Mecklenburg  (  Whig,  June  17,  July  1, 
4,  22)  should  have  favored  the  same  in  preference  to  a  surrender  of  the 
mixed  basis,  shows  that  the  divisionists  in  the  East  were  not  wholly  insig- 
nificant. 


70  Representation  in  Virginia.  [324 

Convention  to  get  it  to  reconsider  the  basis  question,1  but  the 
Convention  would  not  reopen  the  discussion,  and  the  com- 
promised plan,  as  stated  above,  went  into  the  constitution 
which  was  adopted  by  the  Convention,  August  1, 1851.2 

The  new  constitution,  on  the  4th  Thursday  in  October,  1851, 
was  ratified  by  an  overwhelming  majority,  75,748  votes  being 
cast  for  ratification,  and  only  11,063  for  rejection.3  The  West 
had  won  in  the  fight,  and  now  had  a  majority  of  four  on  joint 
ballot  of  the  two  houses  of  the  General  Assembly.  Under 
the  former  system  of  representation  the  West  had  only  41  per 
cent,  of  the  members  in  the  Legislature ;  it  now  had  51  per 
cent. 


1 A  public  meeting  in  Albemarle  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote  instructed 
their  delegate,  T.  J.  Randolph,  who  had  voted  for  the  compromise,  to  move 
a  reconsideration  of  the  same.  (  Whig,  May  30,  and  July  15,  1851.)  Glou- 
cester County  asked  its  representative,  Bowden,  to  resign.  (  Whig,  June  10.) 
Wingfield,  another  Eastern  man  who  had  voted  for  the  compromise,  was  re- 
quested by  his  constituents  to  move  a  reconsideration.  (  Whig,  July  4.) 
These  attempts  were  made  several  times,  the  last  on  July  26,  just  five  days 
before  the  Convention  adjourned  sine  die.  (Journal,  p.  385.) 

3  The  vote  for  the  final  adoption  of  the  constitution  by  the  Convention 
shows  that  all  the  members  from  the  West  except  one,  and  about  one-half 
of  the  Eastern  members  voted  for  the  constitution.  (Journal,  p.  419.) 

3  See  Eeturns  (MS) :  Stale  Papers  (1851).  The  small  vote  for  rejection 
was  principally  in  the  East,  but  even  here  only  five  counties,  Amelia, 
Louisa,  Prince  George,  Southampton  and  Warwick,  gave  majorities '  for 
rejection.  Others  probably  would  have  given  majorities  against  the  con- 
stitution, but  for  the  fact  that  all  to  whom  suffrage  has  been  extended  voted 
for  the  constitution.  Suffrage  was  extended  by  more  than  50  per  cent. 
The  newspapers  from  the  adjournment  of  the  Convention  till  the  election 
in  October  show  the  state  of  feeling  at  the  time.  The  East  had  cooled 
down,  and  did  not  urge  the  rejection  of  the  constitution  so  violently  as  one 
might  suppose  after  the  heated  strife  in  the  Convention.  However,  we  find 
some  advocating  the  rejection  of  the  constitution  on  account  of  the  princi- 
ples of  representation,  though  the  other  reforms  were  considered  whole- 
some. Yet  all  thought  that  the  constitution  would  be  adopted,  and  both 
the  Democrats  and  Whigs  held  conventions,  and  nominated  candidates  for 
the  offices  to  be  filled  under  the  new  constitution,  even  before  its  ratification. 
(  Whig,  August  29 ;  Sept.  20,  1851.) 


325]  The  Reform  Convention  of  1850-51.  71 

The  basis  question  was  now  settled,  or  rather  a  plan  was 
adopted  for  its  final  settlement.  Sectional  feeling  ceased. 
Every  one  rejoiced  that  at  last  there  was  peace  in  the  State. 
A  division,  however,  was  near  at  hand,  a  division  which 
showed  that  a  greater  part  of  the  people  of  the  Trans-Alle- 
ghany  district,  the  section  which  the  East  claimed  was  espe- 
cially antagonistic  to  slave  property  and  filled  with  "  Northern 
ideas,"  was  really  of  a  different  sentiment  from  the  rest  of  the 
State. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
THE  PRESENT  SYSTEM  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

The  provisions  of  the  Constitution  of  1851  in  regard  to  the 
basis  of  representation  were  never  carried  out.  The  secession 
movement  came  on,  and  February  13, 1861,  a  Convention  was 
called  at  Richmond,  which,  after  vain  efforts  for  reconciliation, 
finally  passed  an  ordinance  of  secession  by  a  vote  of  81  to  51.1 
The  section  west  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  opposed  seces- 
sion, so  organized  a  government  to  act  in  concert  with  the 
Union,  and  called  it  the  Government  of  Virginia.2  Francis 
H.  Peirpont  was  made  Governor.3  A  constitutional  conven- 
tion was  called,  and  a  constitution  for  West  Virginia  adopted, 
February  18,  1862.4  Then  in  May,  1862,  a  Legislature  met 
at  Wheeling,  claiming  to  be  the  Legislature  of  Virginia, 
though  composed  entirely  of  men  from  the  Trans- Alleghany 
counties  (about  one-third  of  the  counties  of  the  State),  and 
passed  a  bill  giving  the  consent  of  the  State  of  Virginia  to  the 


1  Code  of  Virginia  (1873),  pp.  2,  8.          *  Ibid.,  pp.  8,  9.         3  Ibid.,  p.  11. 

4  Ibid.,  p.  13.  In  regard  to  representation  this  constitution  stated  that 
white  population  should  be  the  basis.  There  were  to  be  18  senatorial  districts 
as  nearly  equal  as  possible  in  white  population,  and  in  the  House  of  Dele- 
gates every  county  was  given  a  representative  or  representatives  where  it 
was  possible.  But  where  several  counties  were  made  into  districts  to 
equalize  the  population,  the  constitution  provided  for  rotation  between  the 
counties  in  electing  delegates  in  proportion  to  the  population  of  each  county. 
For  example,  if  two  counties  together  elected  one  delegate,  and  one  county 
had  twice  as  large  a  population  as  the  other,  a  resident  of  the  larger  county 
was  to  be  elected  for  two  terms  and  a  resident  of  the  smaller  county  for 
one  term.  (West  Va.  Constitution:  Poorefs  Constitutions,  II,  p.  1981.) 

72 


327]  The  Present  System  of  Representation.  73 

formation  of  this  new  State.1  By  a  proclamation  of  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  issued  the  19th  of  April,  1863,  West 
Virginia  was  to  become  a  part  of  the  Union  in  sixty  days  after 
this  proclamation.2 

The  Peirpont  Government,  having  accomplished  the  dis- 
memberment of  Virginia,  was,  in  1863,  transferred  from 
Wheeling  to  Alexandria.3  The  General  Assembly  held  at 
Alexandria  passed  a  bill  calling  for  a  convention  to  frame  a 
constitution  for  the  remaining  portion  of  Virginia.4  A  con- 
vention accordingly  assembled  at  Alexandria,  February  13, 
1864.5  Very  few  counties  were  represented,6  but  a  constitu- 
tion7 was  adopted.  This  was  never  submitted  to  the  people 
for  ratification.8 

This  Alexandria  Constitution  was  never  considered  as  the 
constitution  of  the  State,  although  President  Johnson  by  his 
proclamation  recognized  the  Alexandria  Government  as  the 
legal  government  of  the  State,  and  Peirpont  as  Governor.9 
This  Government  at  the  close  of  the  civil  war  was  moved  to 
Kichmond.  Over  this  was  the  military  commander,  Gen.  J. 
M.  Schofield,  and  by  his  appointment  Peirpont  was  superseded, 
April  6,  1868,  by  H.  H.  Wells.10 

By  two  acts  of  Congress  (one  of  March  2  and  the  other  of 
March  27,  1867)  the  Federal  Government  provided  for  the 
reorganization  of  the  State  Governments.11  The  commander 
in  each  military  district  was  instructed  to  take,  before  Septem- 
ber 1,  1867,  a  registration  of  all  persons  entitled  to  vote. 

1  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  14.  Under  the  constitution  of  U.  S.  it  was  neces- 
sary that  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  should  consent  to  the  new  State  (U. 
S.  Const.,  Art.  IV,  Sect.  3,  cl.  1.) ;  hence  we  see  one-third  of  the  State 
claiming  to  be  the  State. 

s  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  15.  An  act  for  the  admission  of  West  Virginia 
as  a  State  had  passed  Congress,  Dec.  31, 1862. 

3  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  18.  'Acts  (Alexandria),  1863-64,  p.  4. 

5  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  18.  •  Ibid. 

''Constitution  in  Acts  (Alexandria),  1865-67,  p.  757,  el  seq. 

8  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  18.  9 Ibid.,  p.  23.  I0  Ibid.,  p.  25. 

"See  Acts  in  Documents  of  Convention,  1867-68,  p.  8,  et  seq. 


74  Representation  in  Virginia.  [328 

But  all  persons  who  had  held  any  military  or  civil  office  (no 
matter  how  insignificant)  under  the  United  States  or  any  State 
and  had  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  and 
afterwards  had  in  any  way  aided  the  "  rebellion,"  were  dis- 
franchised. An  election  should  then  be  held  to  take  the  sense 
of  the  registered  voters  for  calling  a  constitutional  convention 
and  to  elect  delegates  to  the  same.  The  basis  of  representa- 
tion for  the  convention  was  to  be  the  registered  voters.1 

The  provisions  of  these  acts  were  carried  out  in  Virginia 
by  General  Schofield,  and  October  22,  1867,  was  appointed 
as  the  day  for  the  election  of  delegates  and  for  taking  the 
sense  of  the  qualified  voters  on  a  convention.2  Schofield  ap- 
portioned the  one  hundred  and  five  delegates  of  which  the 
convention  under  the  acts  of  Congress  was  to  be  composed. 
He  was  accused  of  gerrymandering,  but  for  this  accusation 
there  seems  to  be  no  grounds.3 

The  vote  of  the  people  declared  in  favor  of  the  convention. 
The  contest  was  between  the  races,  the  whites  against  the  con- 
vention, and  the  blacks  almost  unanimously  for  it.4 

The  Convention  assembled  in  Richmond,  December  3, 1867, 
and  remained  in  session  till  April  17, 1868.  It  was  composed 
of  eighty-one  whites  and  twenty-four  negroes.5  According  to 
parties  there  were  sixty-eight  "Radicals"  or  Republicans,  and 
thirty-seven  Conservatives  or  Democrats.  Thirty-three  mem- 
bers were  non-natives  of  the  State,  persons  who  had  come  to 


1  This  basis  did  great  injustice  to  the  whites,  as  so  many  had  been  dis- 
franchised. All  the  negroes,  however,  over  21  years  of  age  had  the  right 
to  register ;  hence  taking  the  registered  voters  as  the  basis  for  the  conven- 
tion was  a  measure  favorable  to  the  blacks  and  much  disliked  by  the 
whites. 

'Documents  of  Convention  (1867-67),  p.  15.          "Dispatch,  Oct.  31, 1867. 

4  The  numbers  of  registered  voters  were  225,933;  whites,  120,101,  and 
colored,  105,832.  At  the  election  on  the  convention,  76,084  whites  and 
93,145  negroes  voted.  The  vote  for  the  convention  was  107,342,  of  which 
only  14,835  were  whites,  and  against  the  convention  was  61,887,  of  which 
only  638  were  negroes.  See  Documents  of  Convention  (1867-68),  pp.  52,  56. 

^Dispatch,  April  20,  1868. 


329]  The  Present  System  of  Representation.  75 

Virginia  from  the  North  immediately  after  the  civil  war.1 
The  "  Radical "  party  of  sixty-eight  contained  only  fourteen 
white  Virginians.  Putting  it  another  way,  fifty-four 2  out  of 
the  one  hundred  and  five  members  of  the  Convention,  were 
the  incomers  from  the  North  and  the  negroes.3  The  Conven- 
tion was  thus  controlled  by  an  element  entirely  opposed  to  the 
interests  of  the  best  people  of  the  State,  and  they  (the  whites) 
were  very  violent  in  their  denunciations  of  the  Convention4 
and  its  President,  Judge  J.  C.  Underwood,  who  was  thoroughly 
hated  by  the  Virginia  people. 

In  this  Convention  the  question  of  a  basis  of  representation 
had  assumed  a  different  aspect.  There  was  no  longer  any 
Western  Virginia  to  fear,  no  slave  property  to  protect  by 
keeping  the  government  in  the  hands  of  Eastern  Virginia ; 
but  it  now  became  a  question  of  white  or  negro  domination  in 
the  State,  whether  the  whites  or  the  negroes  should  control  the 
General  Assembly.  Some  had  no  fears  provided  all  the  whites 
were  given  the  right  of  suffrage,  and  then  it  became  simply  a 
question  of  party  rule.  The  native  Virginians,  those  who 
had  fought  for  what  they  considered  their  rights,  were  appre- 
hensive lest  the  Northern  incomers  with  a  few  native  whites 
by  means  of  the  negro  vote  would  rule  the  State.  In  short, 

lDispaich,  April  10,  1868. 

*At  first  sight  one  would  think  that,  since  there  were  33  Northern  in- 
comers and  24  negroes,  this  element  would  be  57  instead  of  54;  but  the 
facts  in  the  case  are  that  there  were  30  non-native  whites,  3  non-native 
negroes,  and  21  native-born  negroes. 

3  The  Republican  leaders  were  Underwood,  Hunnicutt,  Hawxhurst  and 
Allan.  The  negro  leaders  were  Lewis  Lindsay  and  Dr.  Sam  Bayne.  The 
speeches  of  the  negroes  are  amusing  and  the  English  rich.  They  were  a 
great  source  of  annoyance  to  the  white  Republicans  and  of  amusement  to 
the  Democrats  or  Conservatives.  Dr.  Bayne  was  so  irrepressible  that  on  one 
occasion  a  motion  was  made  not  to  allow  him  to  speak  more  than  five  times 
a  day  on  one  subject.  (Dispatch,  March  25, 1868.)  On  another  occasion, 
J.  C.  Gibson,  a  Conservative,  who  was  occupying  the  Chair  in  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  called  Dr.  Bayne  to  the  Chair,  much  to  the  discomfort  of 
the  Republicans.  (Dispatch,  April  2,  1868.) 

4 Dispatch  (Dec.  3,  1867)  called  the  Convention  a  farce. 


76  Representation  in  Virginia.  [330 

the  question  was  whether  the  Democratic  party,  composed  of 
the  great  mass  of  whites,  or  the  Republican  party  (then  termed 
Radical),  composed  chiefly  of  negroes  and  Northern  incomers, 
should  govern  the  State. 

The  Convention  referred  the  question  of  a  basis  of  repre- 
sentation and  the  apportionment  to  a  special  committee.  Two 
reports  were  made,  a  majority  and  a  minority  report.1  Neither 
report  proposed  a  fixed  basis  to  be  embodied  in  the  constitu- 
tion, but  differed  in  the  number  of  members  for  each  house 
and  the  way  in  which  they  should  be  apportioned. 

The  majority  report,  which  was  the  Republican  plan,  pro- 
posed a  House  of  Delegates  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight, 
and  a  Senate  of  forty-two  elected  from  thirty-nine  senatorial 
districts.  The  minority  report  (the  Democratic  plan)  favored 
a  House  of  Delegates  of  eighty-four  and  a  Senate  of  twenty- 
five.  The  majority  report  made  the  apportionment  on  the 
voters  registered  under  the  Reconstruction  Acts  of  1867,  while 
the  minority  report  took  the  census  of  1860.  The  majority 
report  was  adopted  by  the  Convention  with  some  changes,  so 
it  alone  will  be  discussed  here.  The  Senate  was  apportioned 
at  the  ratio  of  one  senator  for  every  5,400  voters.  The  House 
of  Delegates  was  apportioned  in  a  more  peculiar  fashion,  to  be 
a  "  compromise  between  population  and  counties."  To  quote 
the  report :  "  The  method  adopted  in  allotting  the  members  of 
the  House  of  Delegates  was  to  give  one  delegate  to  every  1800 
voters,  and,  where  the  fraction  over  in  a  county  exceeded  nine 
hundred  voters,  to  give  another  delegate,  and  to  every  county 
in  which  the  number  of  voters  was  between  nine  and  eighteen 
hundred,  a  delegate  each.  After  making  this  allotment,  it 
was  found  that  nine  counties,  having  less  than  nine  hundred, 
were  so  situated  that  they  could  not  be  formed  into  suitable 
districts,  and  it  was  thought  best  to  give  each  a  delegate." 
The  apportionment  made  by  the  Committee  according  to  this 


'Reports  in  Documents  of  Convention  (1867-68),  pp.  270-275. 


331]  The  Present  System  of  Representation.  77 

scheme  was  highly  favorable  to  the  Republicans,  but,  as  modi- 
fied and  adopted  by  the  Convention,  was  still  more  so. 

The  apportionment  was  a  gerrymander  in  the  following 
instances : 

(1).  There  were  fifteen  counties  with  less  than  900  voters. 
Of  these  nine  were  certainly  Democratic.  The  others  had 
such  a  large  colored  vote  that  it  was  probable  that  they  would 
be  Republican.  The  apportionment  was  so  made  that  the  six 
Republican  counties  would  elect  six  delegates,  while  the  nine 
Democratic  counties  would  elect  only  six.1 

(2).  The  Republicans  were  benefited  by  making  the  House 
of  Delegates  so  large  that  the  small  counties  could  have  one 
delegate  each.  Mr.  Hawxhurst,  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Representation,  admitted  in  a  speech  that  the  House  of 
Delegates  was  made  large  for  that  purpose,  as  most  of  the 
small  counties  with  less  than  1800  voters  were  Republican.2 

(3).  The  Committee  on  Representation  reported  two  dele- 
gates for  Henrico  County,  and  six  for  Richmond  City.  But 
a  new  registration  in  Richmond  was  completed  just  before  the 
Convention  had  finished  its  labors,  and  it  was  seen  that  the 


1The  counties  were  King  George,  Lancaster,  Middlesex,  New  Kent,  War- 
wick, James  City,  Bland,  Greene,  Warren,  Highland,  Bath,  Alleghany, 
Craig,  Buchanan  and  Wise.  The  first  six  were  Kepublican.  Of  course 
this  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  registered  voters  of  1867,  and  on  the 
expectation  that  many  of  the  whites  would  be  disfranchised.  But  when 
President  Grant  allowed  the  people  to  vote  separately  on  the  disfranchising 
clause  of  the  constitution,  and  it  was  rejected,  some  of  these  became  Demo- 
cratic. Bland,  Greene  and  Warren,  Democratic  counties,  were  given  a 
delegate  each.  Bath  and  Highland,  Buchanan  and  Wise,  Craig  and  Alle- 
ghany, were  made  districts  to  elect  three  delegates.  Cf.  List  of  counties 
with  number  of  registered  voters  (white  and  colored),  Documents  of  Conven- 
tion, 1867-68,  p.  52 ;  Report  of  Committee  on  Representation,  Documents, 
p.  271,  and  Constitution,  Code  of  Fa.  (1873),  p.  76.  Warwick  was  afterwards 
put  into  a  district  with  Elizabeth  City,  but  they  were  given  two  delegates, 
and,  since  Elizabeth  City  had  a  colored  majority  of  1,224,  it  only  made 
Republican  success  surer. 

4  See  Hawxhurst's  Remarks  in  the  Convention,  Dwpalch,  March  25, 1868  ; 
and  Documents,  p..  51. 


78  Representation  in  Virginia.  [332 

whites  would  probably  be  able  to  control  the  city ;  and,  since 
the  colored  voters  in  Henrico  had  a  majority  of  650,  the  two 
were  made  into  one  district  and  given  eight  delegates.1 

(4).  The  Committee  on  Representation  reported  in  favor  of 
one  senator  from  Henrico,  and  two  from  Richmond ;  but,  when 
these  two  were  made  into  one  district  to  elect  delegates,  they 
were  also  put  into  one  senatorial  district  to  elect  three  senators, 
thus  giving  the  control  of  all  the  representatives  for  Richmond 
to  the  colored  voters  of  Henrico.2 

(5).  The  Committee  on  Representation  reported  two  dele- 
gates for  Chesterfield  and  one  for  Powhatan.  Chesterfield  was 
a  doubtful  county ;  but  Powhatan  was  largely  Republican,  the 
colored  voters  having  a  majority  of  722.  The  Convention 
made  these  two  counties  into  one  district,  electing  three  dele- 
gates.3 

With  representation  thus  apportioned,4  and  without  any 
basis  for  future  apportionments,5  the  constitution  was  adopted 
by  the  Convention.  The  whole  system  of  representation  was 
entirely  unfavorable  to  the  whites.  The  result  was  that  the 
citizens  of  Virginia  were  urged  to  do  their  best  to  reject  the 


Registered  voters  in  Richmond  in  1867  were,  whites,  5,571;  negroes, 
6,284 ;  in  1868,  whites,  6,571 ;  negroes,  6,607.  Cf.  Documents,  pp,  52,  271 ; 
Code  of  Fa.  (1873),  p.  76,  and  Dispatch,  March  16,  April  3,  4,  20,  1868. 

2  Of.  Documents,  p.  51,  52, 271 ;  Code  of  Fa.  (1873),  p.  78;  Dispatch,  March 
16,  April  3,  4,  20, 1868. 

3  Cf.  Documents,  p.  51,  52,  271 ;  Code  of  Fa.  (1873),  p.  76. 

The  accusation  was  also  brought  that  taking  the  registration  of  1867,  by 
which  so  many  whites  were  disfranchised,  instead  of  the  census  of  1860  was 
to  give  larger  representation  to  the  counties  having  a  large  colored  popu- 
lation. (Dispatch,  March  23,  1868.) 

4  The  Convention  made  one  change  in  the  report  of  the  committee  in 
regard  to  the  Senate.    Instead  of  39  districts  and  42  senators,  the  number 
of  districts  was  made  40,  and  senators,  43.     See  Constitution :  Code  of  Fa. 
(1873),  pp.  78,  79. 

5  The  constitution  provided  that  reapportionments  should  be  made  by 
the  first  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly  after  every  census,  but  did  not 
state  that  the  population  must  be  the  basis  of  the  reapportionments.     (Con- 
stitution: Code  of  Fa.,  1873,  p.  79.) 


333]  The  Present  System  of  Representation.  79 

constitution,1  aiid  it  is  probable  that  a  large  vote  would  have 
been  polled  against  the  constitution  had  it  been  immediately 
submitted  to  the  people.  However,  by  a  proclamation  of 
General  Schofield,  it  was  announced  that  no  elections  would 
be  held,  as  Congress  had  made  no  appropriations  to  defray 
the  expenses.2  April  10,  1869,  Congress  passed  an  act  to 
have  the  constitution  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters.3  The 
act  provided  that  President  Grant  should  designate  the  time 
for  the  elections,  and  might  also  set  apart  such  clauses  of  the 
constitution  as  he  saw  fit,  to  be  voted  on  separately.  By  far 
the  most  objectionable  features  of  the  constitution  were  the 
disfranchising  clause 4  and  the  "  ironclad  "  oath.5  By  Grant's 
proclamation 6  these  two  clauses  were  submitted  separately  to 
the  voters,  and  rejected,7  whereas  the  rest  of  the  constitution 
was  ratified  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote,  July  6,  1869. 

The  apportionment  of  representation  as  embodied  in  the 
constitution  lasted  only  two  years.     In  1871,  the  General 


1  The  Democratic  members  of  the  Convention  issued  an  address  pointing 
out  the  defects  of  the  constitution  (representation  being  one),  and  urged 
the  whites  to  vote  for  rejection.     (Dispatch,  April  20,  1868.) 

2  Dispatch,  April  5, 1868.  3  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  26. 

4  The  disfranchising  clause  had  been  put  into  the  constitution  in  order  to 
keep  the  government,  if  possible,  in  the  hands  of  the  Northern  incomers 
and  negroes.    Schofield  went  into  the  Convention  in  1868,  and  tried  to 
persuade  it  to  remove  this  clause.    He  was  hissed  and  called  "  King  Scho- 
field" by  the  Republicans  and  negroes.     (Dispatch,  April  18,  1868.)     This 
clause  disfranchised  everyone  who  had  been  an  officer,  Federal,  State  or 
County,  previous  to  or  during  the  war  and  had  afterwards  aided  in  the 
"rebellion."     See  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  p.  26. 

5  Schofield  had  also  opposed  this.    It  provided  that  every  officer  here- 
after elected  should  swear  that  he  had  never  voluntarily  borne  arms  against 
the  United  States.     (Code  of  Va.,  1873,  p.  28.)    This  was  a  Republican 
measure  to  keep  the  best  out  of  office,  as  only  negroes,  Northern  incomers, 
and  a  few  others  would  be  eligible. 

6  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  pp.  26-27. 

7  The  vote  on  the  disfranchising  clause  was  84,410  for,  and  124,360  against, 
and  on  the  "ironclad  oath"  83,458  for,  and  124,715  against ;  for  the  rest  of 
the  constitution  the  vote  for  ratification  was  210,285,  and  for  rejection, 
9,136. 


80  Representation  in  Virginia.  [334 

Assembly  made  a  reapportionment.1  The  House  of  Delegates 
was  reduced  from  one  hundred  and  thirty-eight  to  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-two.  The  number  of  the  Senate,  forty-three, 
remained  unchanged.2  The  gerrymander  of  the  constitution 
was  broken  up.  Richmond  and  Henrico  were  separated  for 
the  election  of  delegates,  Richmond  being  given  five  and 
Henrico  two,  but  they  continued  to  form  a  senatorial  district 
electing  three  senators.  Chesterfield  and  Powhatan  counties 
were  no  longer  to  be  one  district  for  the  election  of  delegates, 
but  Chesterfield  was  to  elect  two  and  Powhatan  one  delegate. 
The  districts  of  Alleghany  and  Craig,  of  Highland  and  Bath, 
and  of  Buchanan  and  Wise,  each  electing  one  delegate  remained 
unchanged,  but  Charles  City  and  New  Kent,  and  York  and 
James  City  were  made  districts  electing  one  delegate  each, 
while  the  district  of  Warwick  and  Elizabeth  City  was  reduced 
from  two  delegates  to  one.3 

The  constitution  provided  for  annual  sessions  of  the  General 
Assembly,  although  the  delegates  were  elected  biennially,  and 
the  senators  for  four  years,  half  of  the  districts  electing  every 
two  years.4  In  1875,  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  was 
suggested  by  the  General  Assembly,  reapproved  by  the  same 

1  See  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  pp.  79,  135.    The  plan  of  this  reapportionment 
was  to  give  as  near  as  possible  one  delegate  to  every  12,000  persons,  and  one 
senator  to  every  36,000.     (Dispatch,  Jan.  31,  1871.) 

2  The  power  resided  in  the  General  Assembly  to  change  the  numbers 
since  the  constitution  gave  the  right  to  reapportion,  and  did  not  definitely 
fix  the  number  for  each  House.    See  Constitution:  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  pp. 
75,  79. 

3  Cf.  Apportionments  in  Code  of  Va.  (1873),  pp.  76-79,  and  134-137.    The 
other  changes  were  one  delegate  less  to  Pittsylvania,  and  to  Norfolk  County 
and  Portsmouth.     In  the  Senate  the  districts  were  differently  arranged  and 
numbered.    Under  the  constitution  the  plan  was  that  all  the  senatorial 
districts  bearing  odd  numbers  should  elect  at  one  time,  and  all  with  even 
numbers  at  another.    By  the  reapportionment  they  were  so  arranged  that 
all  districts  numbered  from  one  to  twenty  inclusive  should  elect  at  one  time, 
and  all  from  twenty-one  to  forty  inclusive  at  another.     Code  of  Va.  (1873), 
p.  137. 

4  Constitution :  Code  (1873),  pp.  75,  78,  80. 


335]  The  Present  System  of  Representation.  81 

body  in  1876,  and  then  ratified  by  the  vote  of  the  people.1  By 
this  amendment  the  General  Assembly  was  to  meet  biennially, 
unless  specially  called  by  the  Governor. 

The  members  of  the  General  Assembly  were  to  be  elected 
as  previously.  The  House  of  Delegates  was  to  be  composed 
of  not  more  than  one  hundred  nor  less  than  ninety,  and  the 
Senate  of  not  more  than  forty  nor  less  than  thirty-three. 
Another  reapportionmeut  was  to  be  made  at  some  time 
previous  to  1879  and  again  in  1891,  and  every  ten  years 
thereafter. 

February  17,  1878,  the  General  Assembly,  in  accordance 
with  this  provision,  reapportioned  representation  throughout 
the  State,  giving  one  hundred  delegates  to  the  House  and 
dividing  the  State  into  thirty-nine  senatorial  districts,  each 
electing  one  senator  except  the  thirty-fifth  district,  composed 
of  Richmond  and  Henrico,  which  was  to  elect  two  senators.2 
When  this  apportionment  was  made,  the  population  was  largely 
guesswork,  so  the  principle  used  was  somewhat  of  a  reversion 
to  the  old  county  system  of  representation.  The  plan  was 
that  "representation  should,  when  it  was  possible,  be  given 
to  small  counties  even  at  the  expense  of  the  larger,  so  that 
every  distinct  community  within  limits  should  have  its  voice 
heard  in  the  Legislature." 3  An  attempt  was  made  to  revert 
almost  entirely  to  the  old  county  system.  A  bill  was  intro- 
duced to  give  four  delegates  to  Richmond,  and  to  take  dele- 
gates from  all  counties  and  cities  having  more  than  one,  and 
so  to  distribute  them  as  to  give  all  the  small  counties,  with  a 
few  exceptions,  one  delegate  each.  This  was  defeated,  as  it 
gave  too  much  power  to  the  minority,  it  being  estimated  that 


lActi  of  Assembly  (1874-75),  pp.  399-403,  and  Acts  (1875-76),  pp.  82-93. 
For  this  method  of  amending  the  constitution,  see  Constitution :  Code  (1873), 
p.  100. 

'Acts  of  Assembly  (1877-78),  pp.  111-114. 

1  Report  of  Committee :  Dispatch,  Feb.  18,  1878.    The  committee  said 
that,  as  far  as  practicable,  they  desired  to  get  back  to  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution  of  1776. 
6 


82  Representation  in  Virginia.  [336 

one-third  of  the  population  would  elect  at  least  one-half  of  the 
delegates.1 

In  1891,  another  reapportionment  was  made.  The  number 
of  members  for  both  houses  remained  the  same,  but  the  dis- 
tricts were  differently  arranged  in  order  to  meet  the  rapid 
increase  in  population  in  some  sections  of  the  State.2  The 
basis  taken  in  allotting  representation  was  the  population 
according  to  the  census  of  1890 ;  one  senator  for  every  40,000 
persons,  and  one  delegate  for  every  16,000,  but  this  was  con- 
siderably modified  by  county  limits.3 

A  glance  at  the  history  of  representation  in  Virginia  shows 
that,  as  much  as  the  basis  question  has  been  agitated,  there  has 
never  been  a  basis  of  representation  except  in  the  Constitution 
of  1776,  which  made  the  basis  for  the  House  of  Delegates 
two  from  each  county,  while  no  basis  was  adopted  for  the 
Senate.  The  present  constitution  provides  for  reapportion- 
ments  after  every  census,  but  does  not  state  that  the  popula- 
tion is  to  be  the  basis.  The  whole  power  is  in  the  hands  of 
the  Legislature,  and  thus  opportunities  are  afforded  for  fraud. 
Any  political  party  in  power  at  the  time  of  a  reapportionment 
has  the  power  to  adopt  any  basis  for  that  reapportionment,  and 
to  gerrymander  the  State  for  party  aggrandizement.4 

Although  the  basis  question  in  Virginia  has  lost  its  interest 
since  the  civil  war  and  the  abolition  of  slavery,  yet  it  seems 
best  that  every  constitution  should  embody  some  basis  of  repre- 
sentation. To  some,  population  as  a  basis  seems  so  generally 
recognized,  that  a  constitutional  basis  appears  useless.  By  no 
means  is  population  the  general  basis  for  State  legislatures. 
In  the  whole  of  the  New  England,  there  is  not  a  State  in  which 
the  present  system  of  representation  is  based  entirely  on  popu- 

lDispatch,  Feb.  19,  1878.          'See  Acts  of  Assembly  (1891-93),  pp.  56-60. 

•  The  Times,  Dec.  11,  1891. 

4  That  the  Democrats  had  such  an  idea  in  1891  is  shown  by  the  remarks 
of  some  of  the  Democratic  leaders  in  the  halls  of  the  Legislature  at  the 
time  of  the  reapportionment.  See  Dispatch,  Dec.  20,  1891,  and  Times,  Dec. 
20,  22,  23,  1891. 


337]  The  Present  System  of  Representation,  83 

lation.  The  large  towns  in  some  instances  have  no  greater 
number  of  representatives  than  the  small  ones,  while,  in  other 
instances,  a  maximum  number  of  representatives  is  established, 
and  it  matters  not  how  .large  the  population  of  any  town  may 
be,  this  maximum  cannot  be  exceeded.1  In  Maryland,  Balti- 
more is  not  represented  in  proportion  to  its  population. 

In  Virginia,  some  improvement  might  be  made  in  regard 
to  the  election  districts  for  both  the  Senate  and  the  House  of 
Delegates.  It  often  occurs  that  the  larger  county  or  counties 
in  the  districts  secure  all  the  representatives  to  the  detriment 
of  the  smaller  counties.  In  county  relationship  the  minority 
should  be  recognized  as  well  as  the  majority,  and,  therefore, 
some  form  of  proportional  representation  between  the  counties 
in  election  districts  should  be  adopted.  The  principle  of  rota- 
tion between  counties  in  the  same  district,  as  seen  in  the  West 
Virginia  constitution,  is  good.2  In  Massachusetts  a  well  estab- 
lished custom  determines  that  there  shall  be  "  rotation  within 
the  district  so  that  each  town  shall  have  its  turn  in  sending  as 
representative  one  of  its  own  residents  once  in  every  few 
years." 3  Each  county  in  Virginia,  with  a  few  exceptions,  has 
its  own  peculiar  interests,  and  it  is  nothing  but  just  and  proper 
that  each  should  have  a  constitutional  right  to  send  to  the 
General  Assembly,  at  stated  periods,  a  representative  from  its 
own  limits. 


1 G.  H.  Haynes :  Kepresentation  in  the  New  England  Legislatures,  Annals 
of  Am.  Academy;  Sept.,  1895. 
8  Supra,  p.  72 ;  Note  4. 
3  G.  H.  Haynes :  Annals  of  Am.  Academy  ;  Sept.,  1895. 


THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  PRESS 

OF 


I.  American  Journal  of  Mathematics.    S.  NEWCOMB  and  T.  CRAIG,  Editors. 
Quarterly.    4to.    Volume  XVIII  in  progress.    $5  per  volume. 

II.  American  Chemical  Journal.    I.  REMSEN,  Editor.    10  nos.  yearly.    8vo. 
Volume  XVIII  in  progress.    $4  per  volume. 

III.  American   Journal  of  Philology.      B.  L.   GILDERSLEEVE,  Editor. 
Quarterly.    8vo.     Volume  XVII  in  progress.    $3  per  volume. 

IV.  Studies  from  the  Biological   Laboratory.     8vo.    Vol.  V  complete. 
$5  per  volume. 

V.  Studies  in  History  and  Politics.    H.  B.  ADAMS,  Editor.    Monthly.    8yo. 
Vol.  XIV  in  progress ;  $3  per  volume.    Fourteen  extra  volumes  of  this  series 
are  also  ready. 

VI.  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars.    4to.    Monthly.    Volume  XV 
in  progress.     $1  per  year. 

VII.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Bulletin.    4to.     Monthly.    Volume  VII  in 
progress.     $1  per  year. 

VIII.  Johns  Hopkins  Hospital  Reports.    4to.    Volume  VI  in  progress.    $5 
per  volume. 

IX.  Contributions  to  Assyriolpgy,  etc.    Volume  III  in  progress. 

X.  Memoirs  from  the  Biological  Laboratory.     W.  E.  BROOKS,  Editor. 
Volume  III  ready. 

XI.  Annual  Report  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.    Presented  by  the 
President  to  the  Board  of  Trustees. 

XII.  Annual  Register  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.    Giving  the  list 
of  officers  and  students,  and  stating  the  regulations,  etc. 


A  NEW  CRITICAL  EDITION  OP  THE  HEBREW  TEXT  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Edited  by  Professor  Paul  Haupt.    Prospectus  on  application. 
ROWLAND'S  PHOTOGRAPH  OF  THE  NORMAL  SOLAR  SPECTRUM.  Ten  plates.  $20. 
DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  HOSPITAL.    J.  S.  Billings,  Editor.    116 

pp.,  56  plates.     4to.    Cloth,  $7.50. 
THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  APOSTLES   (complete  facsimile  edition).     J.  Eendel 

Harris,  Editor.    110  pp.  and  10  plates.    4to.    Cloth,  $5.00. 
REPRODUCTION  IN  PHOTOTYPE  OF  A  SYRIAC  MS.  WITH  THE  ANTILEGOMENA 

EPISTLES.    I.  H.  Hall,  Editor.     Cloth,  $4.00. 
THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  JAPAN.    48  pp.  16mo.    50  cents. 

THE  OYSTER.     By  William  K.  Brooks.     240  pp.,  12  plates.     12mo.     Cloth,  $1. 
ESSAYS  AND  STUDIES.    By  B.  L.  Gildersleeve.    520  pp.  4to.    Cloth,  $3.50. 
STUDIES  IN  LOGIC.     By  members  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University.     C.   S. 

Peirce,  Editor.     123  pp.  12mo.     Cloth,  $2.00. 
GEOLOGICAL  AND  TOPOGRAPHICAL  MAPS  OF  BALTIMORE  AND  VICINITY.    $1.00 

each. 
ESSAYS  IN  THE  CONSTITUTIONAL  HISTORY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES.   J.  Franklin 

Jameson,  Editor.    Cloth,  $2.25. 

THE  GENUS  SALPA.    By  W.  K.  Brooks.     396  pp.  4to.    57  plates.     $7.50. 
GEOLOGY  AND  PHYSICAL  FEATURES  OF  MARYLAND.    By  G.  H.  Williams  and 

W.  B.  Clark.    $1.00. 


A  full  list  of  publications  will  be  sent  on  application. 
Business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  The  Johns  Hop* 
kins  Press. 


MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES 


ZPTJBILIC  A-TIOIET 

W#A  intermission  from  July  to  October  inclusive. 

DEVOTED    TO    THE  INTERESTS 

OF  THE 

ACADEMIC  STUDY  OF  ENGLISH,  GERMAN, 

AND  TUB 

ROMANCE    LANGUAGES. 


A.  MARSHALL  ELLIOTT,  Managing  Editor. 

JAMES  W.  BKIQHT,  H.  C.  G.  VON  JAGEMANN,  HENRY  ALFRED  TODD, 
Associate  Editors. 


This  is  a  successful  and  widely-known  periodical,  managed  by  a  corps  of  professors  and 
instructors  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  University,  with  the  co-operation  of  many  of  the  leading 
college  professors,  in  the  department  of  modern  languages,  throughout  the  country.  While 
undertaking  to  maintain  a  high  critical  and  scientific  standard,  the  new  journal  will  endeavor 
to  engage  the  interest  and  meet  the  wants  of  the  entire  class  of  serious  and  progressive  modern- 
language  teachers,  of  whatever  grade.  Since  its  establishment  in  January,  1886,  the  journal  has 
been  repeatedly  enlarged,  and  has  met  with  constantly  increasing  encouragement  and  success. 
The  wide  range  of  its  articles,  original,  critical,  literary  and  pedagogical,  by  a  number  of  the 
foremost  American  (and  European )  scholars,  has  well  represented  and  recorded  the  recent  pro- 
gress of  modern  language  studies,  both  at  home  and  abroad. 

The  list  of  contributors  to  MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES,  in  addition  to  the  Editors,  includes  the 
following  names : 

ANDERSON,  MELVILLE  B.,  State  University  of  Iowa;  BANCROFT,  T.  WHITING,  Brown  Univer- 
sity, R.  L;  BASKERVILL,  W.  M.,  Vanderbilt  University.  Tenn.;  BOCHER,  FERDINAND.  Harvard 
University,  Mass. ;  BRADLEY,  C.  B.,  University  of  California,  Cal;  BRANDT,  H.  C.  G.,  Hamilton 
College,  N.  Y. ;  BROWNE,  WM.  HAND,  Johns  Hopkins  University.  Md. ;  BURNHAM,  WM.  H.,  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  Md.;  CARPENTER,  WM.  H.,  Columbia  College, N.  Y. ;  CLEDAT,  L.,  Facultfi 
des  Lettres,  Lyons,  France ;  COHN,  ADOLPHE,  Harvard  University,  Mass. ;  COOK,  A.  S.,  Yale 
University;  COSIJN,  P.  J.,  University  of  Leyden,  Holland,  CRANE,  T.  F.,  Cornell  Univer- 
sity, N.  Y. ;  DAVIDSON,  THOMAS,  Orange,  N.  J.;  EGGE,  ALBERT  E.,  St.  Olafs  College,  Minn.; 
FAY,  E.  A.,  National  Deaf-Mute  College,  Washington,  D.  C.;  FORTIER,  ALCKE,  Tulane  Uni- 
versity, La.;  GARNER,  SAMUEL,  U.  S.  Naval  Academy;  GERBER,  A.,  Earlham  College.  Ind.; 
GRANDGENT,  CHARLES.  Harvard  University,  Mass. ;  GUMMERE,  F.  B.,  The  Swain  Free  School, 
Mass. ;  HART,  J.  M.,  University  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio :  HEMPL.GEO.,  University  of  Michigan ; 
Huss,  H.  C.  O.,  Princeton  College,  N.  J. ;  VON  JAGEMANN,  H.  C.  G.,  Harvard  University; 
KARSTEN,  GUSTAF,  University  of  Indiana,  Ind. ;  LANG.  HENRY  R.,  The  Swain  Free  School, 
Mass. ;  LEARNED,  M.  D.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md. ;  LEYH,  EDW.  F.,  Baltimore,  Md. ; 
LODEMAN,  A,  State  Normal  School,  Mich.;  MORFILL,  W.  R.,  Oxford,  England;  McCABE, 
T.,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Md.;  MCELROY,  JOHN  G.  R.,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Pa.; 
O'iX)NNOR,  B.  F.,  Columbia  College,  N.  Y. ;  PRIMER,  SYLVESTER,  Providence,  R.  I.;  SCHKLK  DE 
VERB,  M.,  University  of  Virginia,  Va. ;  SCHILLING,  HUGO,  Wittenberg  College,  Ohio ;  SHELDON, 
EDW.  S.,  Harvard  University,  Mass.;  SHEPHERD,  H.  E.,  College  of  Charleston,  S.  C. ;  SCHMIDT, 
H.  University  of  Deseret,  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah:  SIKVERS,  KDUARD,  University  of  Tubingen, 
Germany ;  SMYTH,  A.  H.,  High  School  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. ;  STODDARD,  FRANCIS  H.,  University 
of  City  of  New  York ;  STURZINGER,  J.  J.,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa. ;  THOMAS.  CALVIN,  University 
of  Michigan,  Mich.;  WALTER,  E.  L.,  University  of  Michigan,  Mich.;  WARREN,  K.  M.,  Johns 
Hopkins  University,  Md. ;  WHITE,  H.  S.,  Cornell  University,  N.  Y. 

SUBSCRIPTION  PRICE  ONE  DOLLAR  AND  FIFTY  CENTS  PER  ANNUM, 

Payable  in  Advance. 

FOREIGN  COUNTRIES  $1.75  PER  ANNUM. 
SINGLE  COPIES  TWENTY  CENTS. 

Specimen  pages  sent  on  application. 

Subscriptions,  advertisements  and  all  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  the 
MANAGING  EDITOR  OF  MODERN  LANGUAGE  NOTES, 

JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY,  BALTIMORE,  MD. 


THE  AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OF  ARCHEOLOGY 

AND  OF  THE 

HISTORY  OF  THE  FINE  ARTS. 


THE  AMERICAN  JOURNAL  OP  ARCHEOLOGY  is  the  organ  of  the  Archaeological  Institute  of 
America.  It  contains  original  articles  by  archaeologists  of  established  reputation  both  in  Europe 
and  America,  also  the  Papers  of  the  American  School  of  Classical  Studies  at  Athens,  Corres- 
pondence, Book  Reviews,  and  News  of  excavations  and  discoveries  in  all  countries. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  X.,  No.  4,  OCT.-DEC.,  1895. 

J.  P.  PETERS. — The  Court  of  Columns  at  Nippur. 

T.  D.  GOODEI.!,  AND  T.  W.  HEERMANCE. — Grave  Monuments  from  Athens. 

J.  C.  HOPPIN. — A  Kylix  by  the  artist  Paiax. 

Book  Reviews. 

Archaeological  News. 

CONTENTS  OF  VOL.  XL,  No.  1,  JAN.-MARCH,  1896. 

R.  NORTON. — Andokides. 

V.  J.  EMERY. — The  Great  Fire  in  Rome  in  the  Time  of  Nero. 
R.  B.  RICHARDSON. — Inscriptions  from  the  Argive  Heraeum. 
Archaeological  Notes. 


Published  Quarterly.    Annual  Subscription,  $5.00. 


Address  for  Literary  Communications 

A.  L.  FROTHINGHAM,  Jr. 

For  Business  Communications 

ALLAN  MARQUAND. 
Princeton,  New  Jersey. 


PUBLICATIONS 

OF  THE 

American  Economic  Association, 

SIX  NUMBERS  ANNUALLY. 


The  following  are  the  most  recent  numbers : 

VOLUME  IX  (1894.) 

HAND-BOOK  AND  REPORT  OF  THE  SIXTH  ANNUAL  MEETING. 

Price  50  cents. 
Nos.  1  and  2.    PROGRESSIVE  TAXATION  IN  THEORY  AND  PRACTICE. 

By  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN,  Ph.  D.    Price  $1.00 ;  cloth  $1.50. 
No.  3.    THE  THEORY  OF  TRANSPORTATION.    By  CHARLES  H.  COOLEY. 
Price  75  cents. 

No.  4.  SIR  WILLIAM  PETTY  :  A  STUDY  IN  ENGLISH  ECONOMIC 
LITERATURE.  By  WILSON  LLOYD  BEVAN,  M.  A.,  Ph.  D.  Price  75  cts. 

NOS.  5  and  6.  PAPERS  READ  AT  THE  SEVENTH  ANNUAL  MEETING. 
"  The  Modern  Appeal  to  Legal  Forces  in  Economic  Life,"  (President's  An- 
nual Address),  by  JOHN  B.  CLARK,  Ph.D.;  "The  Chicago  Strike,"  by 
CARROLL  D.  WRIGHT,  LL.  D. ;  "  The  Unemployed,"  by  DAVIS  R.  DEWEY, 
Ph.D.;  "Population  and  Capital,"  by  ARTHUR  T.  HADLEY,  M.  A.;  "The 
Pope  and  the  Encyclical  on  Labor,"  by  JOHN  GRAHAM  BROOKS.  Price  $1.00. 

VOLUME  X  (1895.) 

HAND-BOOK  AND  REPORT  OF  THE  SEVENTH  ANNUAL  MEETING. 

Price  50  cents. 
Nos.  1,  2  and  3.    THE  CANADIAN  BANKING  SYSTEM,  1817-189O. 

By  R.  M.  BRECKENRIDGE,  Ph.  D.    Price  $1.50. 
No.  4.    POOR  LAWS  OF  MASSACHUSETTS  AND  NEW  YORK.     By 

JOHN  CUMMINGS,  Ph.  D.     Price  75  cents. 

TO  APPEAR  SOON. 

1.  LETTERS  OF  DAVID  RICARDO  TO  JOHN  RAMSAY  McCuLLOCH, 
1816-1823.     Edited,  with  annotations,  by  J.  H.  HOLLANDER,  Ph.  D., 
Instructor  in  Economics,  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

2.  THE   RACE   TRAITS   AND    TENDENCIES   OF   THE  AMERICAN 
NEGRO.     By  FREDERICK  L.  HOFFMAN,  F.  8.  S.,  Statistician  to  the  Pru- 
dential Insurance  Company  of  America. 

The  annual  membership  fee  of  three  dollars  (life  membership  fifty  dollars) 
entitles  one  to  all  the  publications  of  the  Association,  as  they  appear,  and  to  a 
discount  of  one-sixth  if  one  wishes  to  purchase  back  numbers  or  volumes. 

For  general  information  regarding  membership,  etc.,  address 

SECRETARY  AMERICAN  ECONOMIC  ASSOCIATION; 

Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

All  orders  and  inquiries  for  monographs  and  subscriptions  should  be  addressed 
to  the  publishers, 

MACMILLAN  &  CO., 

No.  66  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York. 


Publications  of  the  American  Jewish  Historical  Society. 

No.  I,  1893. 

Contains  the  following  papers:  Address  of  the  President,  Hon.  OSCAR  S. 
STRAUS. — The  Settlement  of  the  Jews  in  Georgia,  CHAS.  C.  JONES,  JR.,  LL.  D. — 
Mickoe  Israel  Congregation  of  Philadelphia,  Rev.  SABATO  MORAIO,  LL.  D. — 
Some  unpublished  material  relating  to  Dr.  Jacob  Lumbrozo  of  Maryland,  Dr.  J. 
H.  HOLLANDER. — Beginnings  of  New  York  Jewish  History,  MAX  J.  KOHLER. — 
Notes  on  the  Jews  of  Philadelphia,  from  published  annals:  The  first  publication 
of  a  Jewish  character  printed  in  Philadelphia,  Prof.  MORRIS  JASTROW,  JR. — 
Jews  mentioned  in  the  Journals  of  the  Continental  Congress,  Dr.  HERBERT 
FRIEDENWALD. — A  Landmark,  N.  TAYLOR  PHILLIPS. — An  Act  allowing  natu- 
ralization of  Jews  in  the  Colonies ;  A  Document  concerning  the  Franks  family, 
Hon.  SIMON  W.  ROSENDALE. — Jewish  beginnings  in  Kentucky,  LEWIS  N. 
DEMBITZ. — Jews  in  the  American  Plantations  between  1600-1700;  Americana 
at  the  Anglo-Jewish  exhibition ;  A  Political  Document  of  the  year  1800,  Dr. 
CYRUS  ADLER. — The  Settlement  of  the  Jews  in  Canada,  ANDREW  C.  JOSEPH. 

80.    143pp.    $1.50. 
No.  2    1894. 

Contains  the  following  papers:  Address  of  the  President,  Hon.  OSCAR  S. 
STRAUS. — A  sketch  of  Haym  Salomon,  Prof.  H.  B.  ADAMS. — History  of  the 
Jews  of  Chicago ;  The  Jewish  Congregation  in  Surinam ;  A  Sermon  by  Moses 
Mendelssohn  printed  in  Philadelphia  130  years  ago,  Dr.  B.  FELSENTHAL. — The 
Civil  Status  of  the  Jews  in  Maryland,  1634-1776,  Dr.  J.  H.  HOLLANDER. — Kev. 
David  Mendez  Machado,  N.  TAYLOR  PHILLIPS. — Note  concerning  David  Hays, 
SOLOMON  SOLIS-COHEN. — The  Colonization  of  America  by  the  Jews,  Dr.  M. 
KAYSERLING. — Phases  of  Jewish  Life  in  New  York  before  1800;  The  Lopez  and 
Rivera  families  of  Newport,  MAX  J.  KOHLER. — Letter  of  Jonas  Phillips  to  the 
Federal  Convention ;  Jacob  Isaacs  and  his  method  of  converting  salt  water  into 
fresh  water;  Memorials  presented  to  the  Continental  Congress,  Dr.  HERBERT 
FRIEDENWALD. — Columbus  in  Jewish  Literature,  Prof.  RICHARD  GOTTHEIL. — 
Settlement  of  the  Jews  in  Texas,  Rev.  HENRY  COHEN. — Aaron  Levy,  Mrs.  J.  H. 
ROSENBACH  and  A.  S.  W.  ROSENBACH. — Documents  for  the  Public  Record  Office 
(London),  Dr.  CHARLES  GROSS. — Memoir  of  John  Moss,  LUCJEN  Moss. 

80.    207  pp.    $1.50. 
No.  3,  1895. 

Contains  the  following  papers:  Address  of  the  President,  Hon.  OSCAR  S. 
STRAUS. — Some  further  references  relating  to  Haym  Salomon,  Dr.  J.  H. 
HOLLANDER. — The  earliest  Rabbis  and  Jewish  writers  of  America,  Dr.  M. 
KAYSERLINQ. — The  American  Jew  as  Soldier  and  Patriot,  Hon.  SIMON  WOLF. — 
Points  in  the  first  chapter  of  New  York  Jewish  History,  A.  M.  DYER. — An 
early  ownership  of  Real  Estate  in  Albany,  N.  Y.,  by  a  Jewish  trader,  Hon.  SIMON 
ROSENDALE. — Phases  of  Jewish  Life  in  New  York  before  1800,  II,  MAX  J. 
KOHLER. — Correspondence  between  Washington  and  Jewish  citizens ;  The  relation 
of  Jews  to  our  National  monuments,  LEWIS  ABRAHAM. — Early  Jewish  literature 
in  America,  G.  A.  KOHUT.  80.  173  pp.  $1.50. 

NO.  4,  1896. 

Contains  the  following  papers :  Chronological  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Jews 
in  Surinam,  Dr.  B.  FELSENTHAL  and  Prof.  RICHARD  GOTTHEIL. — The  Jews  in 
Texas,  Rev.  HENRY  COHEN. — The  Jews  of  Richmond,  JACOB  EZEKIEL. — The 
trial  of  Jorge  de  Almeoda  by  the  Inquisition  in  Mexico  (with  an  illustration), 
Dr.  CYRUS  ADLER. — Incidents  illustrative  of  American  Jewish  Patriotism,  MAX 
J.  KOHLER. — Jewish  Martyrs  of  the  Inquisition  in  South  America,  G.  A.  KOHUT. — 
The  Levy  and  Leixas  families  of  Newport  and  New  York,  N.  T.  PHILLIPS. — A 
biographical  account  of  Ephraim  Hart,  G.  N.  HART.  80.  243  pp.  $2.00. 


All  communications  should  be  addressed  to  the  Corresponding  Secretary, 

Dr.  CYRUS  ADLER,  943  K  St.,  N.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C. 


REVUE  POLIT1QUE  ET  PARLEMENTAIRE, 

110,  RUE  DE  L'UNIVERSITfr- PARIS. 


Directeur:  MARCEL   FOURNIER. 


Abonnements.— Un  an ;  2O  fir.— Union  postale  :  25  fr. 
A.  COLIN  ET  ClE,  5,  RUE  DE  MEZIERES — PARIS. 


Sommaire  du  n°  22— (Avril). 

I.  LA  CRI8E  ITALIENNE,  par  M.  Napoleone  Colajanni,  Depute  au 

Parlement  Italien. 

II.  LA  FRANCE  ET  L'ANGLETERRE  SUR  LE  NIGER,  par  M.  Gus- 
tave  Regelsperger. 

III.  DEMOCUATIE  ET  LIBERTE,  par  M.  Eugene  d'Eichthal. 

IV.  LA  POLICE  A  PARIS  ET  LA  REORGANISATION  DE  LA  POLICE 

PARISIENNE  (Suite  et  fin),  par  M.  Georges  Graux,  Depute  du  Pas- 
de- Calais. 

V.  LES  ASSURANCES  MUTUELLES  OUVRIERES,  par  M.  Eugene 
Rochetin. 

VI.   LES  BANQUES  COLONIALES,  par  M.  G.  Francois. 
VII.  LA  DEUXIEME  PORTION  ET  LES  DISPENSES  QUI  ONT  TIRE 

UN  BON  NUMERO,  par  M.  F.  Valegeas. 
VIII.  VARIETES: 

1°  EN  ROUMANIE,  par  M.  Camille  Guy. 

2°  LA  SITUATION  DU  TRANSVAAL  AU  POINT  DE  VUE  INTERNA- 
TIONAL, par  M.  I.-V.  Povolni. 

3°  LE  TARIF  HYPOTHECAIRE  ITALIEN  DE  1895,  par  M.  Flour 
de  Saint-Genis. 

IX.  REVUE  DES  PRINCIPALES  QUESTIONS  POLITIQUES  ET  SO- 
CIALES: 

1°  REVUE  DES  QUESTIONS  FINANCIERES  ET  MONETAIRES,  par  M. 

A.  Raffalovich. 

2°  REVUE  DES  QUESTIONS  AGRICOLES,  par  M.  D.  Zolla. 
X.  LA  VIE  POLITIQUE  ET  PARLEMENTAIRE  A  L'ETRANGER: 
1°  BRESIL,  par  M.  A.  Guanabara,  Depute  au  Parlement  Bresilien. 
2°  HONGRIE,  par  M.  A.-E.  Horn. 
3°  TRANSVAAL,  par  M.  E.  de  Morpurgo. 
XI.  LA  VIE  POLITIQUE  ET  PARLEMENTAIRE  EN  FRANCE: 

1°  LA  POLITIQUE  EXTERIEURE  DU  Mois,  par  M.  Francis  de 

Pressense. 

2°  CHHONIQUE  POLITIQUE  INTERIEURE,  par  M.  Felix  Roussel. 
3°  LA  VIE  PARLEMENTAIRE,  par  XXX. 
XII.  CHRONOLOGIE    POLITIQUE    ETRANGERE    ET    FRANCAISE, 

par  XXX. 
XIII.  BIBLIOGRAPHIE. 


STUDIES  IN  HISTORY,  ECOIOMICS  AND  PUBLIC  LAW, 


EDITED  BY 


THE   UNIVERSITY   FACULTY   OF  POLITICAL   SCIENCE 
OF  COLUMBIA  COLLEGE. 


VOLUME  I— BOUND,  $2.5O;  UNBOUND,  $2.OO. 
I.    THE  DIVORCE  PROBLEM  :  A  STUDY  IN  STATISTICS.* 

By  WALTER  F.  WILLCOX,  PH.D. — Price,  50  cents. 

II.  HISTORY  or  TARIFF  ADMINISTRATION  IN  THE  UNITED 
STATES,  FROM  COLONIAL  TIMES  TO  THE  MCKINLEY 
ADMINISTRATION  Bnx.* 

By  JOHN  DEAN  Goss,  PH.D. — Price,  50  cents. 

III.  HISTORY  OF  MUNICIPAL  LAND  OWNERSHIP  ON  MANHAT- 

TAN ISLAND.* 

By  GEORGE  ASHTON  BLACK,  PH.D. — Price,  50  cents. 

IV.  FINANCIAL  HISTORY  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 

By  CHARLES  H.  J.  DOUGLAS,  PH.D. — Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  II.— BOUND,  $2.5O;  UNBOUND,  $2.OO. 
I.    THE  ECONOMICS  OF  THE  RUSSIAN  VILLAGE. 

By  ISAAC  A.  HOURWICH,  PH.D. — Price,  $1.00. 
II.    BANKRUPTCY:  A  STUDY  IN  COMPARATIVE  LEGISLATION. 

By  SAMUEL  W.  DUNSCOMB,  JR.,  PH.D. — Price,  75  cents. 
III.    SPECIAL  ASSESSMENTS  :  A  STUDY  IN  MUNICIPAL  FINANCE.* 

By  VICTOR  ROSEWATER. — Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  III — BOUND,  $2.5O;  UNBOUND,  $2.OO. 
I.    HISTORY  OF  ELECTIONS  IN  THE  AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

By  COUKTLANDT  K.  BISHOP,  PH.D. — Price  $1.50;  bound,  $2.00. 
II.    THE    COMMERCIAL    POLICY   OF    ENGLAND   TOWARD    THE 
AMERICAN  COLONIES. 

By  GEORGE  L.  BEER,  A.M. — Price,  $1.00. 

VOLUME  IV.— BOUND,  $2  5O ;  UNBOUND,  $2.OO. 
I.    FINANCIAL  HISTORY  OF  VIRGINIA. 

By  W.  Z.  RIPLEY,  PH.D.— Price,  75  cents. 

II.    THE  INHERITANCE  TAX.     By  MAX  WEST,  PH.D.— Price,  75  cents. 
IH.    HISTORY  OF  TAXATION  IN  VERMONT. 

By  FREDERICK  A.  WOOD,  Ph.D. — Price,  75  cents. 

VOLUME  V. 
I.    DOUBLE  TAXATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

By  FRANCIS  WALKER,  Ph.D. — Price,  75  cents. 

Other  numbers  will  be  announced  hereafter. 
Numbers  marked  *  are  not  sold  separately. 


For  further  particulars  apply  to 

PROF.  EDWIN  R.  A.  SELIGMAN, 

COLUMBIA  COLLEGE, 
OB  TO  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  NEW  YORK. 


NOTES  SUPPLEMENTARY  TO  J.  H.  U.  STUDIES. 

MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT  IN  ENGLAND.    By  Dr.  ALBERT  SHAW. 

SOCIAL  WORK  IN  AUSTRALIA  AND  LONDON.    By  WILLIAM  OBEY. 

ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  HIGHER  EDUCATION.    By  Professor  HERBERT  B.  ADAMS. 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  CITY  GOVERNMENT.    By  Hon.  SETH  Low. 

THE  LIBRARIES  OF  BALTIMORE.    By  Dr.  P.  R.  UHLKR. 

WORK  AMONG  THE  WORKINGWOMEN  IN  BALTIMORE.  By  Professor  H. 
B.  ADAMS. 

CHARITIES:  THE  RELATION  OF  THE  STATE,  THE  CITY,  AND  THE  IN- 
DIVIDUAL TO  MODERN  PHILANTHROPIC  WORK.  By  Dr.  A.  G.  WARNEB. 

LAW  AND  HISTORY.    By  Dr.  WALTER  B.  SCAIFK. 

THE    NEEDS   OF    SELF-SUPPORTING   WOMEN.     By  Miss   CLARE  DE  GBAP- 

FENREID. 

THE  ENOCH  PRATT  FREE  LIBRARY.     By  Dr.  LKWIS  H.  STEINEB. 

EARLY  PRESBYTERIANISM  IN  MARYLAND.     By  Rev.  J.  W.  MclLVAIN. 

THE  EDUCATIONAL  ASPECT  OF  THE  U.  S.  NATIONAL  MUSEUM.  By 
Professor  O.  T.  MASON. 

UNIVERSITY  EXTENSION  AND  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  THE  FUTURE.  By 
RICHARD  G.  MOULTON. 

THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  EDUCATION.    By  Dr.  WILLIAM  T.  HARRIS. 

POPULAR  ELECTION  OF  U.  S.  SENATORS.    By  JOHN  HAYNES. 

A  MEMORIAL  OF  LUCIUS  S.  MERRIAM.    By  J.  H.  HOLLANDER  and  others. 

IS  HISTORY  PAST  POLITICS  ?    By  Professor  HERBERT  B.  ADAMS. 


ANNUAL  SERIES,  1883-1895. 

SERIES  I.— LOCAL  INSTITUTIONS.     479  pp.    84.00. 

SERIES  II.— INSTITUTIONS  AND  ECONOMICS.     629  pp.    84.00. 

SERIES  III.— MARYLAND,  VIRGINIA,  AND  WASHINGTON.    595pp.    84.00. 

SERIES  IV.— MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT  AND  LAND  TENURE.    600pp.  83.50. 

SERIES  V.— MUNICIPAL  GOVERNMENT,  HISTORY  AND  POLITICS.  569 
pp.  83.50. 

SERIES  VI.— THE  HISTORY  OF  CO-OPERATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
540  pp.  83.50. 

SERIES  VII.— SOCIAL  SCIENCE,  MUNICIPAL  AND  FEDERAL  GOVERN- 
MENT. 628  pp.  83.50. 

SERIES  VIII.— HISTORY,  POLITICS,  AND  EDUCATION.     625pp.    83.50. 

SERIES  IX.— EDUCATION,  POLITICS  AND  SOCIAL   SCIENCE.     640  pp.    8350. 

SERIES  X.— CHURCH  AND  STATE,  COLUMBUS  AND  AMERICA.  630  pp. 
83.50. 

SERIES   XI.— LABOR,    SLAVERY,   AND   SELF-GOVERNMENT.    574  pp.    8350. 

SERIES  XII.— INSTITUTIONAL  AND  ECONOMIC  HISTORY.     626pp.    83.50. 

SERIES  XIII.— SOUTH  CAROLINA,  MARYLAND,  AND  VIRGINIA.   606pp.  83.50. 

The  set  of  thirteen  series  is  now  offered,  uniformly  bound  in  cloth,  for  library  use,  for  839.00.  The 
thirteen  series,  with  fourteen  extra  volumes,  twenty-seven  volumes,  in  cloth,  for  858.00. 


All  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  THE  JOHNS  HOP- 
KINS PRESS,  BALTIMORE,  MARYLAND.  Subscriptions  will  also  be  received,  or 
single  copies  furnished  by  any  of  the  following 

AMERICAN  AGENTS: 

New  York. — G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons.  Cincinnati. — Robert  Clarke  Co. 

Boston. — Damrell  &  Upham:  W.  B.  Clarke  Indianapolis.— Bowen-Merrill  Co. 

&  Co.  Chicago.— A.  C.  McClurg  &  Co. 

Providence. — Preston  &  Rounds.  Louisville.— Flexner  Brothers. 

Philadelphia.— Porter  &  Coates ;   J.  B.  Lip-  New  Orleans.— George  F.  Wharton. 

pincott  Co.  Toronto. — Carswell  Co.  (Limited). 

Washington.— W.  H.  Lowderrnilk  &  Co.;  Montreal.— William  Foster  Brown  &  Co. 

Brentano's. 

EUROPEAN  AGENTS: 

Paris.— A.  Herman  ;  Em.  Terquem.  London.— Kegan  Paul,  Trench,  Trubner  A 

Berlin.— Puttkammer  &  Muhlbrecht;  Mayer  Co.;  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons. 

AMiiller.  Turin,  Florence  and  Rome.— E.  Loescher. 
Leipzig.— F.  A.  Brockhaus. 


EXTRA   VOLUMES    OF 

STUDIES  IN  HISTORICAL  AND  POLITICAL  SCIENCE. 


I.   THE  KEPUBLIC  OF  NEW  HAVEN.     By  CHARLES  H.  LEVER- 
MORE.    342  pages.    8vo.     Cloth.     $2.00. 
II.  PHILADELPHIA,  1681-1887.    By  EDWARD  P.  ALLINSON,  and 

BOIES  PENROSE.    444  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $3.00. 
III.   BALTIMORE  AND  THE  NINETEENTH  OF  APRIL,  1861.    By 

GEORGE  WILLIAM  BROWN.     176  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $1.00. 
IV-V.   LOCAL     CONSTITUTIONAL     HISTORY     OF     THE     UNITED 
STATES.    By  GEORGE  E.  HOWARD. 

Volume  I. — Development  of  the  Township,  Hundred  and  Shire. 

542  pp.     8vo.    Cloth.    $3.00. 
Volume  II. — In  preparation. 
VI.  THE  NEGRO  IN  MARYLAND.    By  JEFFREY  R.  BRACKETT.    270 

pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $2.00. 
VII.  THE  SUPREME  COURT  OF  THE   UNITED  STATES.    By  W. 

W.  WILLOUGHBY.     124  pages.     8vo.  Cloth.     $1.25. 
VIII.  THE  INTERCOURSE  BETWEEN  THE  U.  S.  AND  JAPAN.    By 

INAZO  (OTA)  NITOBE.    198  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $1.25. 
IX.   STATE  AND  FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT  IN   SWITZERLAND. 

By  JOHN  MARTIN  VINCEXT.    225  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $1.50. 
X.   SPANISH  INSTITUTIONS  OF  THE   SOUTHWEST.    By  FRANK 

W.  BLACKMAR.     380  pages.    8vo.    Cloth.    $2.00. 
XI.  AN  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

By  MORRIS  M.  COHN.     250  pages.     8vo.     Cloth.     $1.50. 
XII.   THE  OLD  ENGLISH  MANOR.    By  C.  M.  ANDREWS.    280  pages. 
8vo.     Cloth.    $1.50. 

XIII.  AMERICA  :   ITS  GEOGRAPHICAL    HISTORY,   1492-1892. 

By  WALTER  B.  SCAIFE.    176  pages.     8vo.    Cloth.    $1.50. 

XIV.  FLORENTINE  LIFE  DURING  THE  RENAISSANCE.    By  WALTER 

B.  'SCAIFE.    256  pages.    8vo.     Cloth.    $1.50. 

XV.  THE  SOUTHERN  QUAKERS  AND  SLAVERY.    A  Study  in  Insti- 
tutional History.     By  STEPHEN  B.  WEEKS.     8vo.     Cloth.    $2.00. 


The  set  of  thirteen  series  is  now  offered,  uniformly  bound  in  cloth,  for 
library  use,  for  $39,  and  including  subscription  to  the  current  (fourteenth) 
series,  for  $42.00. 

The  fourteen  series,  with  fourteen  extra  volumes,  altogether  twenty- 
eight  volumes,  in  cloth  as  above,  for  $60.00. 


All  business  communications  should  be  addressed  to  THE  JOHNS  HOP- 
KINS PRESS,  BALTIMORE,  MARYLAND. 


9       61 


DATE  DUE 


MTED  IN  U.S.A. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  823  047     6 


